Weak and strong turbulence in self-focusing and defocusing media

Gregory Falkovich; Vladimir Rosenhaus

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 36 references

Weak and strong turbulence in self-focusing and defocusing media

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Repulsion suppresses, attraction enhances: wave turbulence splits at one loop, and the split persists into strong turbulence with flux-independent or coupling-independent spectra.

desk verdict A solid weak-turbulence sign result wrapped in a speculative but intriguing large-N strong-turbulence package that deserves a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12451 v1 pith:77NJRBMO submitted 2025-01-21 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.quant-gashep-thnlin.CD

Vladimir Rosenhaus , Gregory Falkovich This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.quant-gashep-thnlin.CD

keywords waveturbulencenonlinearSchrodingerequationinversecascadeinteractionrenormalizationlarge-NlimitstrongcriticalbalanceKolmogorov-Zakharovspectrum

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

The paper asks whether the focusing ($\lambda$<0) and defocusing ($\lambda$>0) nonlinear Schrodinger equation, which look alike in the weak-turbulence cascade, differ already before turbulence becomes strong. Its answer is yes: at next-to-leading order in the nonlinearity, the one-loop correction to the interaction vertex suppresses repulsion, like screening in electrodynamics, and enhances attraction, like antiscreening in chromodynamics, so the inverse-cascade spectrum steepens in the defocusing case and flattens in the focusing case relative to the Kolmogorov-Zakharov law. To reach strong turbulence analytically, the authors study an N-component vector model in the large-N limit, where summing bubble diagrams gives a closed kinetic equation valid at all scales. In the defocusing strong-turbulence regime they derive the stationary spectrum n_k proportional to $Q^{{1/3}}$ $N^{{2/3}}$ $k^{{-d-2/3}}$, independent of the coupling $\lambda$ yet dependent on the infrared cutoff; in the focusing case they argue for a critical-balance spectrum n_k ~ $k^{{2-d}}$/$\lambda$, independent of the flux. A sympathetic reader should care because these are concrete, sign-dependent predictions for how an inverse cascade saturates when nonlinearity is no longer weak.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renormalized, momentum-dependent interaction vertex |Lambda_1234|^2 = $lambda^{2}$ / |1 - L_-|^2, where L_- is the one-loop bubble integral over the turbulent occupation numbers, the same L_- that appears in the next-to-leading-order weak-turbulence kinetic equation. In the weak regime, L_+- appear as order-epsilon_k corrections whose sign decides whether the spectrum steepens or flattens. In the strong regime, summing the geometric series of bubbles replaces the bare coupling by this effective coupling: defocusing sits in the regime |L_-| >> 1 where the vertex is IR-dominated and scales as Lambda ~ $k^{2}$/N, while focusing sits near the pole Re L_- = 1 with a small imaginary part, corresponding to critical balance where nonlinear and linear timescales match. Zakharov-type power counting with this scale-dependent vertex produces the stationary and self-similar spectra, and the same vertex controls the position-space decorrelation laws via the occupation-number exponents.

What would settle it

Solve the large-N kinetic equation numerically in three dimensions for $\lambda$>0 in the strongly nonlinear regime and check whether the stationary spectrum is n_k ~ $Q^{{1/3}}$ $N^{{2/3}}$ $k^{{-d-2/3}}$ with amplitude independent of $\lambda$ and a vanishing collision integral; alternatively, measure the deep-infrared spectral slope in three-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii simulations of the defocusing nonlinear Schrodinger equation and test whether it approaches d + 2/3 rather than the weaker-turbulence guess d.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the usual starting point, that focusing and defocusing nonlinear Schrodinger equations share the same weak-turbulence physics, breaks at the next order in the coupling. Written as a kinetic equation with an effective interaction $Lambda^{2}$_1234 = $lambda^{2}$ (1 + 2 L_+ + 8 L_-), the one-loop corrections L_+- have angle-averaged signs opposite to $\lambda$ for all arguments, so repulsion is screened and attraction is antiscreened. This forces the stationary inverse-cascade spectrum to sit above the Kolmogorov-Zakharov curve for $\lambda$>0 and below it for $\lambda$<0. In the large-N vector model, the all-orders kinetic equation replaces the bare coupling by |Lambda_1234|^2 = $lambda^{2}$ / |1 - L_-|^2; in the defocusing strong-turbulence regime where L_- is large, the effective vertex scales as Lambda ~ $k^{2}$/N, and applying the standard Zakharov power-counting gives the stationary spectrum n_k ~ $Q^{{1/3}}$ $N^{{2/3}}$ $k^{{-d-2/3}}$ plus the freely decaying analogue n_k ~ $t^{{-1/2}}$ $k^{{-d-1}}$. In the focusing case, the only way to keep the interaction growing toward the infrared is to sit near the pole Re L_- = 1 with small imaginary part, which yields the critical-balance spectrum n_k ~ $k^{{2-d}}$/$\lambda$; in two dimensions the corresponding spectrum is a constant n_k = A ~ 1/|$\lambda$|, an exact stationary solution of the large-N kinetic equation.

Load-bearing premise

In the defocusing strong-turbulence calculation, everything rests on the assumption that repulsion is suppressed so strongly that the effective interaction scales as momentum squared divided by the number of components, with |L_-| >> 1; if the one-loop suppression saturates instead, the lambda-independent spectrum and its dependence on the infrared cutoff do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the defocusing inverse cascade, the strong-turbulence spectrum is steeper than the Kolmogorov-Zakharov law, n_k ~ Q^{1/3} N^{2/3} k^{-d-2/3}, independent of the bare coupling lambda and dependent on the infrared cutoff k_0, so the cascade depends on its destination, a new feature for wave turbulence.
In the focusing case, the strong-turbulence spectrum should approach the critical-balance form n_k ~ k^{2-d}/lambda, with amplitude independent of the action flux; collapses or self-focusing events carry wave action directly to large wavenumbers, providing a flux loop.
Weak turbulence in the defocusing case ends earlier than the naive estimate: the loop integral L is infrared-dominated, so the validity condition is L << 1 rather than epsilon_k << 1, giving the crossover k_1 ~ k_*^2 / k_0 instead of k_*.
In two dimensions, the defocusing spectrum should flow in the infrared toward n_k ~ k^{-d-2/3}, while the focusing spectrum should flow to the constant critical-balance state n_k = A, which is manifestly a stationary solution of the large-N kinetic equation.
Each predicted spectrum translates into a dimension-independent position-space decorrelation law, for example the defocusing steady cascade gives <|psi(r)-psi(0)|^2> ~ N (k_0 r)^{2/3}, giving signatures that can be sought in cold-atom or optical experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the defocusing result makes the inverse cascade genuinely nonlocal in wavenumber: the infrared cutoff controls the whole low-k spectrum, and the amplitude should grow with box size L ~ 1/k_0, a testable finite-size scaling prediction for Gross-Pitaevskii simulations.
If the amplitude Q^{1/3} N^{2/3} with no lambda survives, the defocusing strong-turbulence state is a kind of strongly interacting fixed point; computing the 1/N corrections would show whether the coupling truly drops out or only appears at subleading order.
In the focusing case, the pole in the effective vertex suggests that logarithmic and double-logarithmic corrections to n_k ~ k^{2-d}/lambda are likely; a numerical search for slow, flux-insensitive drift of the spectrum would discriminate critical balance from a pure power law.
The predicted shift of the weak-turbulence breakpoint from k_* to k_1 ~ k_*^2 / k_0 can be checked directly in time-resolved simulations by locating where the spectral slope departs from Kolmogorov-Zakharov scaling and comparing with the measured condensate scale.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a paper with one clean new result and a more speculative edifice built on top of it. The clean result is the sign of the one-loop vertex renormalization for the NSE: repulsion is suppressed, attraction enhanced, so the weak-turbulence spectrum should be steeper in the defocusing case and shallower in the focusing case. I read the computation through; the only gap is that the sign-fixing angular integral (A.34) is checked numerically rather than analytically. For establishing a sign, that is a minor concern, not a fatal one.

The strong-turbulence part is a mixed bag. The large-N kinetic equation is taken from earlier work, and the authors use it to argue for two universality classes. The free-decay spectrum (3.13), n_k ~ t^{-1/2} k^{-d-1}, is derived from the same beta=2 vertex argument and matches published numerics (k^-4 in 3D). That is a concrete success. The stationary defocusing spectrum (3.11) is more fragile: it rests on the assumption that one-loop suppression persists into the deep nonlinear regime, and on a power-counting argument rather than a direct check that the collision integral vanishes. The paper is transparent about the assumption, but that means (3.11) is a conjecture, not a derivation.

I checked the specific k0–N inconsistency raised in the stress-test. It does not hold up: inserting (3.11) into N = integral d^d q n_q gives N ~ Q/k0^2, consistent with the replacement used in (3.8)–(3.9). So that particular objection misses. The deeper point stands, though: the beta=2 vertex is inferred from a scaling estimate, and stationarity of the full large-N kinetic equation is never verified. That is the real soft spot.

The focusing case is admittedly more speculative, especially in 3D. The critical-balance spectrum is argued on physical grounds, and the authors themselves say its 3D status is unclear. They place more weight on 2D, where n_k = const. is manifestly stationary. This is all clearly flagged.

Who is this for? People working in wave turbulence, quantum gas cascades, and strong turbulence generally. The weak-turbulence sign result is worth having on its own. The large-N strong-turbulence claims are worth taking seriously but need a numerical test of the kinetic equation, which the authors themselves suggest. I would send this to a serious referee. It is not ready to be swallowed whole, but it deserves careful engagement rather than desk rejection.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Nonlinear Schrödinger equation in both focusing (λ<0) and defocusing (λ>0) regimes. In the weak-turbulence regime, it computes the one-loop (order λ^3) correction to the wave kinetic equation and argues that the angle-integrated vertex correction has sign opposite to λ, implying a steeper spectrum for defocusing and a shallower spectrum for focusing media. For strong turbulence, the authors introduce an O(N) vector model and sum bubble diagrams to obtain a large-N kinetic equation valid at all scales. In the defocusing case they derive the inverse-cascade spectrum n_k ∝ Q^{1/3}N^{2/3}k^{-d-2/3} (Eq. 3.11), which is independent of λ, while in the focusing case they argue for critical balance scaling. Appendices contain the detailed one-loop computation, the finite-N kinetic equation, self-similar solutions, and angular integrals.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper gives a concrete analytic prediction distinguishing focusing and defocusing media in strong turbulence, and it introduces a large-N framework that makes strong-turbulence spectra analytically accessible. The paper's strengths include the explicit one-loop computation, the resummation of bubble diagrams into a large-N kinetic equation, the absence of fitted parameters, and falsifiable predictions (e.g., the d+2/3 exponent, the k0 dependence, and the self-similar exponent d+1) that can be checked against Gross-Pitaevskii simulations. However, the strong-turbulence defocusing spectrum rests on an unproven persistence assumption and on a scaling argument rather than on a direct stationarity check, so the advertised universality is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)

[3.1.1, Eq. (3.11)] The stationarity of the defocusing strong-turbulence spectrum is asserted on the basis of the scaling argument γ′=0 in Eq. (3.10), not by a direct check that (3.11) solves the large-N kinetic equation (3.2). The effective vertex (3.9) was derived using the non-stationary spectrum (3.7) and the identification N≈Q/k0^2; although that identification is in fact self-consistent with (3.11) (integrating (3.11) gives N∝Q/k0^2 because the IR end dominates), the paper should verify that with (3.11) inserted into L− (3.4) one has |L−|≫1, Im L−≪Re L−, and that the collision integral indeed vanishes, including the treatment of the UV cutoff k*. Without this, the λ-independent spectrum (3.11) remains a conjecture.
[3.1, after Eq. (3.6)] The approximation |Λ|²≈λ²/|L−|² for large L− is an assumption (the text says 'It is natural to assume') rather than a consequence of the large-N resummation. This assumption controls the scaling β=2 in Eq. (3.10) and hence the exponent d+2/3 and the λ-independence of (3.11). Subleading bubble corrections or a substantial imaginary part of L− could change the vertex scaling. A consistency check using the proposed stationary spectrum is needed.
[A.4, Eq. (A.34)] The sign result (2.11), which is the basis for the main weak-turbulence claim in Sec. 2, rests on the nonnegativity of the integrals (A.34) and (A.38) for all x>0, which the paper verifies only by numerical evaluation. Please provide an analytic proof or else report the numerical verification in sufficient detail (method, accuracy, parameter range) so that the word 'demonstrate' in Sec. 2 is supported.
[Sec. 2, flux argument after Eq. (2.12)] The step from the negative sign of the angle-integrated correction to U to the statement that the spectrum is steeper for λ>0 is qualitative. The text acknowledges after Eq. (2.4) that the situation is 'more subtle', and the paper does not compute the first-order correction to n_k. To support the abstract's claim of a steeper spectrum, either derive the correction to the KZ spectrum or explicitly label this inference as heuristic.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (2.9) and Appendix A.2] "Sold angle" should be "solid angle" (the typo appears in Eq. (2.9) and at the start of Appendix A.2.1).
[Eq. (3.11)] The two forms n_k≈Q^{1/3}N^{2/3}k^{-d-2/3}≈Qk0^{-4/3}k^{-d-2/3} would benefit from an explicit statement that they are related by the self-consistency relation N∝Q/k0^2, which follows from integrating (3.11) itself; the current text can give the impression that this relation is imported from the rejected spectrum (3.7).
[Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.16)-(3.21)] The claim that (3.16) is not a cascade solution because the flux in (3.21) decreases along the cascade would be clearer if the direction of the cascade and the sign of the flux were stated explicitly; as written, the monotonicity of Q(q) for q<k* is left to the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central spectra are derived by explicit one-loop computation and KZ power counting, not by fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are not circular. In Sec. 2, the one-loop vertex correction is computed directly from the next-to-leading-order kinetic equation (2.2)-(2.3); the sign statement (2.11) is verified by explicit angular integrals in App. A.4, so the concordant citation of the authors' prior [23] is illustrative, not load-bearing. The large-N kinetic equation (3.2)-(3.3) is a standard bubble resummation, cited to independent and overlapping references, and is used as an input, not as a prediction. In Sec. 3.1.1 the defocusing strong-turbulence spectrum (3.11) is obtained by an explicit power-counting argument: the candidate (3.7) is tested and rejected, the vertex scaling beta=2 is estimated from L_- in (3.8)-(3.9), and the KZ exponents gamma=d+2/3 and gamma'=0 are imposed in (3.10); no parameter is fitted to the target spectrum and no external data are used to set its constants. Similarly, the focusing critical-balance form (3.16)-(3.22) is derived from the L_-=1 pole condition and not imported as a predetermined result. The internal-consistency questions raised by the reader (e.g., whether (3.11) satisfies the full collision integral) are mathematical validity concerns, not circularity: the derivation does not assume its conclusion through a self-citation or by defining X in terms of Y. Minor self-citations [18,23] appear, but each load-bearing statement is either computed explicitly in this paper or backed by independent numerics [8,10,11,12], so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The derivation relies on the large-N kinetic equation from prior literature, on the persistence of one-loop suppression in strong turbulence (defocusing), on a monotonicity assumption (focusing), and on a numerically checked but unproven angular integral identity. The spectrum (3.11) depends self-consistently on the total wave action N, which is an input, not a fit.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Wave kinetic equation closure: fourth moments factorize into products of occupation numbers with Gaussian statistics at leading order.
Invoked in Sec. 2 and Appendix A to derive the order-λ³ kinetic equation (2.2); standard weak-turbulence assumption following [15-17].
domain assumption The large-N kinetic equation (3.2) with |Λ1234|² = λ²/|1−L−|² is valid at all scales.
Taken from the large-N resummation program [30-33, 8, 10, 18]; all strong-turbulence results in Sec. 3 rely on it.
ad hoc to paper In the defocusing strong-turbulence regime the one-loop suppression persists, so |Λ|² ≈ λ²/|L−|² for L− large.
Sec. 3.1, first paragraph: 'It is natural to assume that interaction suppression persists into the regime of strong turbulence'; this is the load-bearing step for (3.6) and (3.11).
ad hoc to paper The angular integral (A.34) is nonnegative for all x>0.
Appendix A.4: 'as can easily be checked by numerically evaluating the integral'; the paper gives no analytic proof, yet this underpins the sign result (2.11).
ad hoc to paper In the focusing case the effective interaction must grow monotonically along the cascade toward the IR.
Sec. 3.2: 'It would be odd if, as we move along the cascade, the effective interaction first increases and then decreases'; used to exclude γ<1 and the pure power law γ=1.
domain assumption Wave collapses in focusing NSE transfer action directly from small to large k, providing a flux-loop mechanism.
Sec. 3.2, following Dyachenko et al. [1]; used to argue the focusing spectrum becomes the flux-independent critical balance form.
domain assumption The large-N vector model is representative of the N=1 NSE in strong turbulence.
Sec. 3: 'we cannot a priori know to what extent strong turbulence in the large N NSE is reflective of strong turbulence in the N=1 NSE'; the paper proceeds under this acknowledged assumption.
standard math Zakharov-Kraichnan scaling: for a vertex scaling as k^β and dispersion k^α, the stationary cascade exponent is γ = d + α/3 - 2β/3.
Used in Sec. 3.1.1 to obtain γ=d+2/3 from β=2; standard result from [3].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak and strong turbulence in self-focusing and defocusing media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77NJRBMO

@misc{pith2026250112451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak and strong turbulence in self-focusing and defocusing media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77NJRBMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12451}
}

read the original abstract

While the focusing and defocusing Nonlinear Schrodinger Equations have similar behavior in the weak turbulence regime, they must differ dramatically in the strong turbulence regime. Here, we show that this difference is already present at next-to-leading order in the nonlinearity in the weak turbulence regime: The one-loop correction to the interaction vertex suppresses repulsion (like screening in electrodynamics), leading to a steeper spectrum in the defocusing case. In contrast, attraction enhancement (like antiscreening in chromodynamics) makes the spectrum less steep in the focusing case. To describe strong turbulence, we consider a vector model in the limit of a large number of components. A large-N kinetic equation, valid at all scales, can be derived analytically. It has an inverse-cascade solution whose two asymptotics, at high and low wavenumbers, describe weak and strong turbulence, respectively. We find two forms of universality in the strong turbulence spectrum: in focusing media it is independent of the flux magnitude, while in defocusing media it is independent of the bare coupling constant, with the largest scale appearing instead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12451 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Optical turbulence: weak turbu- lence, condensates and collapsing filaments in the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation,

S. Dyachenko, A. Newell, A. Pushkarev, and V. Zakharov, “Optical turbulence: weak turbu- lence, condensates and collapsing filaments in the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena57 no. 1, (1992) 96–160

work page 1992
[2]

Steady states in dual-cascade wave turbulence

V. Grebenev, S. Medvedev, S. Nazarenko, and B. Semisalov, “Steady states in dual-cascade wave turbulence,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53 no. 36, (2020) 365701, arXiv:2003.04613 [physics.flu-dyn]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[3]

V. E. Zakharov, V. S. L’vov, and G. Falkovich, Kolmogorov Spectra of Turbulence I: Wave Turbulence. Springer-Verlag, 1992

work page 1992
[4]

Emergence of a turbulent cascade in a quantum gas,

N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Emergence of a turbulent cascade in a quantum gas,” Nature 539 no. 7627, (Nov., 2016) . 26

work page 2016
[5]

Synthetic dissipation and cascade fluxes in a turbulent quantum gas,

N. Navon, C. Eigen, J. Zhang, R. Lopes, A. L. Gaunt, K. Fujimoto, M. Tsubota, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Synthetic dissipation and cascade fluxes in a turbulent quantum gas,” Science 366 no. 6463, (Oct., 2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Universal equation of state for wave turbulence in a quantum gas,

L. H. Dogra, G. Martirosyan, T. A. Hilker, J. A. P. Glidden, J. Etrych, A. Cao, C. Eigen, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Universal equation of state for wave turbulence in a quantum gas,” Nature 620 no. 7974, (July, 2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Bidirectional dynamic scaling in an isolated bose gas far from equilibrium,

J. A. P. Glidden, C. Eigen, L. H. Dogra, T. A. Hilker, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Bidirectional dynamic scaling in an isolated bose gas far from equilibrium,” Nature Physics 17 no. 4, (Jan., 2021)

work page 2021
[8]

Nonthermal fixed points, vortex statistics, and superfluid turbulence in an ultracold Bose gas

B. Nowak, J. Schole, D. Sexty, and T. Gasenzer, “Nonthermal fixed points, vortex statis- tics, and superfluid turbulence in an ultracold Bose gas,” Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 043627, arXiv:1111.6127 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 36 references

[9]

Dynamical formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate,

R. Lacaze, P. Lallemand, Y. Pomeau, and S. Rica, “Dynamical formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Physica D152 (2001) 779–786

2001
[10]

Universal self-similar dynamics of relativistic and nonrelativistic field theories near nonthermal fixed points,

A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, K. Boguslavski, and J. Berges, “Universal self-similar dynamics of relativistic and nonrelativistic field theories near nonthermal fixed points,” Phys. Rev. D92 no. 2, (2015) 025041, arXiv:1503.02498 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[11]

Self-similar evolution of wave tur- bulence in gross-pitaevskii system,

Y. Zhu, B. Semisalov, G. Krstulovic, and S. Nazarenko, “Self-similar evolution of wave tur- bulence in gross-pitaevskii system,” Phys. Rev. E108 no. 6, (Dec., 2023)

2023
[12]

Evolution of inverse cascades and formation of precondensate in gross- pitaevskii turbulence in two dimensions,

N. Vladimirova, “Evolution of inverse cascades and formation of precondensate in gross- pitaevskii turbulence in two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. E96 no. 6, (Dec., 2017)

2017
[13]

Phase transitions in wave turbulence,

N. Vladimirova, S. Derevyanko, and G. Falkovich, “Phase transitions in wave turbulence,” Phys. Rev. E85 (Jan, 2012)

2012
[14]

Kinetic theory of nonthermal fixed points in a Bose gas,

I. Chantesana, A. Pi˜ neiro Orioli, and T. Gasenzer, “Kinetic theory of nonthermal fixed points in a Bose gas,” Phys. Rev. A 99 no. 4, (2019) 043620, arXiv:1801.09490 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2019 arXiv
[15]

Feynman rules for forced wave turbulence,

V. Rosenhaus and M. Smolkin, “Feynman rules for forced wave turbulence,” JHEP 01 (2023) 142, arXiv:2203.08168 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Wave turbulence and the kinetic equation beyond leading order,

V. Rosenhaus and M. Smolkin, “Wave turbulence and the kinetic equation beyond leading order,” Phys. Rev. E109 no. 6, (2024) 064127, arXiv:2212.02555 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Loop diagrams in the kinetic theory of waves,

V. Rosenhaus, D. Schubring, M. S. J. Shuvo, and M. Smolkin, “Loop diagrams in the kinetic theory of waves,” JHEP 06 (2024) 025, arXiv:2308.00740 [hep-th]. 27

2024 arXiv
[18]

Strong wave turbulence in strongly local large N theories,

V. Rosenhaus and D. Schubring, “Strong wave turbulence in strongly local large N theories,” arXiv:2406.18475 [hep-th]

arXiv
[19]

The equilibrium range in the spectrum of wind-generated waves,

O. M. Phillips, “The equilibrium range in the spectrum of wind-generated waves,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics4 no. 4, (1958) 426–434

1958
[20]

Toward a Theory of Interstellar Turbulence. II. Strong Alfvenic Turbulence,

P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, “Toward a Theory of Interstellar Turbulence. II. Strong Alfvenic Turbulence,” J. Astrophysics438 (Jan., 1995) 763

1995
[21]

The role of the generalized Phillips’ spectrum in wave turbu- lence,

A. Newell and V. Zakharov, “The role of the generalized Phillips’ spectrum in wave turbu- lence,” Physics Letters A372 no. 23, (2008) 4230–4233

2008
[22]

Critical balance in magnetohydrodynamic, rotating and stratified turbulence: towards a universal scaling conjecture,

S. V. Nazarenko and A. A. Schekochihin, “Critical balance in magnetohydrodynamic, rotating and stratified turbulence: towards a universal scaling conjecture,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 677 (Mar., 2011) 134–153

2011
[23]

Interaction Renormalization and Validity of Kinetic Equa- tions for Turbulent States,

V. Rosenhaus and G. Falkovich, “Interaction Renormalization and Validity of Kinetic Equa- tions for Turbulent States,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 no. 24, (2024) 244002, arXiv:2308.00033 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry

S. Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry. Cambridge University Press, 1985

1985
[25]

The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,

K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, “The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion,” Phys. Rept. 12 (1974) 75–199

1974
[26]

Dynamical symmetry breaking in asymptotically free field theo- ries,

D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, “Dynamical symmetry breaking in asymptotically free field theo- ries,” Phys. Rev. D10 (Nov, 1974) 3235–3253

1974
[27]

An introduction to the SYK model,

V. Rosenhaus, “An introduction to the SYK model,” J. Phys. A 52 (2019) 323001, arXiv:1807.03334 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[28]

TASI Lectures on Large N Tensor Models,

I. R. Klebanov, F. Popov, and G. Tarnopolsky, “TASI Lectures on Large N Tensor Models,” PoS TASI2017 (2018) 004, arXiv:1808.09434 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[29]

Observation of Anomalous Decay of a Polarized Three-Component Fermi Gas,

G. L. Schumacher, J. T. M¨ akinen, Y. Ji, G. G. T. Assump¸ c˜ ao, J. Chen, S. Huang, F. J. Vivanco, and N. Navon, “Observation of Anomalous Decay of a Polarized Three-Component Fermi Gas,” arXiv:2301.02237 [cond-mat.quant-gas]
[30]

Matter Wave Turbulence: Beyond Kinetic Scal- ing,

C. Scheppach, J. Berges, and T. Gasenzer, “Matter Wave Turbulence: Beyond Kinetic Scal- ing,” Phys. Rev. A81 (2010) 033611, arXiv:0912.4183 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2010 arXiv
[31]

Controlled nonperturbative dynamics of quantum fields out-of-equilibrium,

J. Berges, “Controlled nonperturbative dynamics of quantum fields out-of-equilibrium,” Nucl. Phys. A 699 (2002) 847–886, arXiv:hep-ph/0105311. 28

2002 arXiv
[32]

Non-thermal fixed points: Effective weak-coupling for strongly correlated systems far from equilibrium,

J. Berges, A. Rothkopf, and J. Schmidt, “Non-thermal fixed points: Effective weak-coupling for strongly correlated systems far from equilibrium,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101 (2008) 041603, arXiv:0803.0131 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[33]

Large-N kinetic theory for highly occupied systems,

R. Walz, K. Boguslavski, and J. Berges, “Large-N kinetic theory for highly occupied systems,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 11, (2018) 116011, arXiv:1710.11146 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[34]

A flux loop mechanism in two- dimensional stratified turbulence,

G. Boffetta, F. D. Lillo, A. Mazzino, and S. Musacchio, “A flux loop mechanism in two- dimensional stratified turbulence,” Europhysics Letters95 no. 3, (Jul, 2011) 34001

2011
[35]

How vortices and shocks provide for a flux loop in two- dimensional compressible turbulence,

G. Falkovich and A. G. Kritsuk, “How vortices and shocks provide for a flux loop in two- dimensional compressible turbulence,” Phys. Rev. Fluids2 (Sep, 2017) 092603

2017
[36]

Cascades in nonlocal turbulence,

G. Falkovich and N. Vladimirova, “Cascades in nonlocal turbulence,” Phys. Rev. E91 (Apr,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Optical turbulence: weak turbu- lence, condensates and collapsing filaments in the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation,

S. Dyachenko, A. Newell, A. Pushkarev, and V. Zakharov, “Optical turbulence: weak turbu- lence, condensates and collapsing filaments in the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena57 no. 1, (1992) 96–160

work page 1992

[2] [2]

Steady states in dual-cascade wave turbulence

V. Grebenev, S. Medvedev, S. Nazarenko, and B. Semisalov, “Steady states in dual-cascade wave turbulence,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53 no. 36, (2020) 365701, arXiv:2003.04613 [physics.flu-dyn]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[3] [3]

V. E. Zakharov, V. S. L’vov, and G. Falkovich, Kolmogorov Spectra of Turbulence I: Wave Turbulence. Springer-Verlag, 1992

work page 1992

[4] [4]

Emergence of a turbulent cascade in a quantum gas,

N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Emergence of a turbulent cascade in a quantum gas,” Nature 539 no. 7627, (Nov., 2016) . 26

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Synthetic dissipation and cascade fluxes in a turbulent quantum gas,

N. Navon, C. Eigen, J. Zhang, R. Lopes, A. L. Gaunt, K. Fujimoto, M. Tsubota, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Synthetic dissipation and cascade fluxes in a turbulent quantum gas,” Science 366 no. 6463, (Oct., 2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Universal equation of state for wave turbulence in a quantum gas,

L. H. Dogra, G. Martirosyan, T. A. Hilker, J. A. P. Glidden, J. Etrych, A. Cao, C. Eigen, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Universal equation of state for wave turbulence in a quantum gas,” Nature 620 no. 7974, (July, 2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Bidirectional dynamic scaling in an isolated bose gas far from equilibrium,

J. A. P. Glidden, C. Eigen, L. H. Dogra, T. A. Hilker, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, “Bidirectional dynamic scaling in an isolated bose gas far from equilibrium,” Nature Physics 17 no. 4, (Jan., 2021)

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Nonthermal fixed points, vortex statistics, and superfluid turbulence in an ultracold Bose gas

B. Nowak, J. Schole, D. Sexty, and T. Gasenzer, “Nonthermal fixed points, vortex statis- tics, and superfluid turbulence in an ultracold Bose gas,” Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 043627, arXiv:1111.6127 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012