Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Revisiting Multi-Wave Resonance in Classical Lattices: Quasi-Resonances, Not Exact Resonance, Govern Energy Redistribution

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exact multi-wave resonances, long assumed to drive energy transfer in lattices, stop themselves: their own dynamics equalize counter-propagating pairs and then freeze, leaving thermalization to quasi-resonances.

desk verdict The pairwise-equalization mechanism is real and testable, but the keystone resonance classification sits in the supplement, so the main text overclaims until that proof is public. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05551 v1 pith:OSZ4CLJ4 submitted 2025-07-08 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.CDphysics.class-ph

Wei Lin , Yong Zhang , Hong Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CDphysics.class-ph PACS 05.45.-a
keywords FPUT-6latticemulti-waveresonancequasi-resonancepairwiseequalizationkineticequationsthermalizationwaveturbulencesystem-sizescaling
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 challenges the standard assumption that exact multi-wave resonance—wavevectors and frequencies summing exactly to zero—governs energy transfer in classical lattices. In the sixth-order FPUT-6 lattice, the exact 6-wave resonant kinetic equations possess a symmetry that partitions modes into counter-propagating pairs $(k,-k)$; each pair equalizes its energies and then the evolution halts, leaving the indicator entropy near $0.09$ instead of thermal equilibrium. The paper argues that nonlinearity-induced quasi-resonances, interactions that only approximately satisfy the resonance condition within a frequency-broadening bandwidth, are what actually redistribute energy and drive thermalization. If this is right, exact-resonance-only analyses miss the dominant mechanism, and the dependence of thermalization on system size and nonlinearity strength follows from the contrasting scaling of exact versus quasi-resonance connectivity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 6-wave resonant kinetic equation together with its symmetry-induced pairwise invariants. For the 3-3 symmetry solutions $(k_1,k_2,k_3,-k_1,-k_2,-k_3)$, the equation reduces to a form giving $d(D_{k_1}+D_{-k_1})/dt=0$, forcing each counter-propagating pair to equalize and then freeze; for quasi-symmetry solutions the invariant is $d(D_{k_1}+D_{k_2}-D_{-k_1}-D_{-k_2})/dt=0$, equalizing sums of paired energies. The second central object is the connectivity strength $p_6(k_1)$, the sum of interaction coefficients over all modes satisfying the quasi-resonance condition $|\omega_{k_1}\pm\cdots\pm\omega_{k_6}|<\Omega$, which measures a mode's capacity to diffuse energy; its dependence on $\Omega$ (and hence on nonlinearity strength $g$) and on system size $N$ separates quasi-resonance from exact-resonance regimes.

What would settle it

Numerically enumerate all six-tuples $(k_1,\dots,k_6) \bmod N$ for $N=32$ and $N=64$ and test the exact conditions $k_1\pm k_2\pm\dots\pm k_6=0\pmod{N}$ and $\omega_{k_1}\pm\omega_{k_2}\pm\dots\pm\omega_{k_6}=0$; finding any nonzero contribution from a 1-5 or 2-4 type process would falsify the classification. Alternatively, integrate the full FPUT-6 dynamics at an extremely small $g$ where quasi-resonances are suppressed and watch whether the indicator entropy falls below the claimed $0.09$ plateau toward equipartition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that exact resonance is not the primary mechanism for energy transfer in classical lattices, because its own time evolution destroys the resonance conditions. For the FPUT-6 lattice, the paper shows that every dynamical 6-wave exact resonance relevant for $N$ not divisible by 3 is a 3-3 symmetry or 3-3 quasi-symmetry process, and that the kinetic equations then split into isolated counter-propagating pairs. For 3-3 symmetry solutions this yields the invariant $d(D_k+D_{-k})/dt=0$, so each pair equalizes and the evolution stops, with entropy saturating near $0.09$ rather than approaching equipartition. The same pairwise equalization is seen in full lattice dynamics, becomes more faithful to the kinetic prediction at weaker nonlinearity, and persists in FPUT-$\beta$ models and under fixed boundary conditions. The paper concludes that quasi-resonances, whose connectivity grows with system size while exact-resonance connectivity shrinks, are the true driver of thermalization.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the classification, asserted in the main text and deferred to a supplementary section, that for system sizes not divisible by 3 the only nonzero 6-wave exact resonances are 3-3 symmetry and 3-3 quasi-symmetry processes; if any 1-5, 2-4, 4-2, 5-1, or 6-0 exact resonance exists, the pairwise equalization picture and the simplified kinetic equations could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exact 6-wave resonances alone can no longer be invoked to thermalize finite FPUT-6 lattices: they only equalize $(k,-k)$ pairs and leave a residual entropy plateau near $0.09$, independent of nonlinearity strength.
  • For sufficiently large systems, exact-resonance connectivity becomes negligible, so energy redistribution and thermalization are governed by quasi-resonances, with the universal relaxation scaling $T_c\propto g^{-2}$.
  • As nonlinearity weakens, quasi-resonance connectivity shrinks and higher-order ($10$-wave, $14$-wave) processes take over, producing a finite-size threshold below which finite FPUT lattices fail to thermalize and instead show persistent recurrences.
  • The pairwise-equalization signature appears generically in FPUT-$\beta$ models and under fixed boundary conditions, so the mechanism is not an artifact of the specific FPUT-6 model.
  • The paper concludes that exact multi-phonon resonance conditions should be re-examined, including in quantum contexts, where the same symmetry constraints on kinetic equations may invalidate resonance-only transport predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the residual entropy plateau $\langle s(t)\rangle/(N-1)\simeq 0.09$ should be observable in any finite system whose dynamics is dominated by exact 6-wave resonances, providing a quantitative fingerprint for experiments on mechanical lattices or waveguide arrays.
  • Editorial extension: because quasi-resonance connectivity grows with $N$ while exact connectivity shrinks, there should be a crossover system size $N^*(g)$ at which the thermalization mechanism switches; rescaling $T_{\rm eq}(N,g)$ as a function of $N g^{\alpha}$ may collapse data onto two branches and directly test this crossover.
  • Editorial extension: full dynamics shows that high-frequency pairs equalize first; if kinetic theory could predict the ordering of pairwise equalization times, that would be a sharper and more falsifiable prediction than the averaged entropy plateau.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in classical lattice systems, exact multi-wave resonances are not the primary mechanism for energy transfer; instead, the time evolution itself breaks the resonance conditions via pairwise equalization between counter-propagating modes (k, -k). The authors study the FPUT-6 lattice, derive 6-wave kinetic equations, and argue that for systems where N is not divisible by 3, only 3-3 symmetry and 3-3 quasi-symmetry resonances exist. These solutions lead to invariants such as d/dt(D_k + D_-k)=0 for symmetry solutions, causing the exact-resonance dynamics to stall at a finite entropy plateau, while quasi-resonances, whose connectivity grows with system size, drive thermalization. The claims are supported by kinetic-equation simulations and full-dynamics simulations of the original lattice equations, and the authors report distinct scaling regimes for the thermalization time as a function of nonlinearity and system size.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would overturn a standard picture in which exact multi-wave resonances provide the primary route to thermalization in finite FPU-type lattices. The symmetry argument in Eqs. (4)-(5) is clean and elegant, and the full-dynamics simulations in Fig. 3 provide concrete evidence for pairwise equalization in the actual lattice equations. The paper also offers a falsifiable, size-dependent prediction: exact-resonance connectivity decreases with N while quasi-resonance connectivity increases. The analytical computation of the entropy saturation value 0.09 and the explicit kinetic-equation simulations are useful strengths. However, the paper's central derivation depends on a classification of 6-wave exact resonances that is asserted without proof in the main text and deferred to an unavailable supplement, and the quantitative measure p_6 used to compare exact and quasi-resonance strengths is heuristic. These issues make the current manuscript unsuitable for acceptance without substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Kinetic equations and 6-wave exact resonance solutions] The classification of exact 6-wave resonances for N not divisible by 3 is load-bearing but asserted without proof. The text states that 'there are no exact resonance solutions for the 4-2 and 2-4 processes' and that only 3-3 symmetry and 3-3 quasi-symmetry solutions exist, but the only support is the sentence 'The generality of the conclusions is not affected by excluding these solutions, see Supplementary Section 1.' The simplification of Eq. (3) to Eqs. (4)-(5) and the invariant d/dt(D_k+D_-k)=0 depend entirely on this classification: if any 2-4 or 4-2 process existed, it would add terms to Eq. (3) that are not antisymmetric in (k,-k), and pairwise equalization would not necessarily halt at the reported plateau. This proof must appear in the main text or in a supplement provided with the manuscript, and the absence of 1-5, 5-1, and 6-0 processes should also be justified explicitly for the dispersion relation of this model.
  2. [Quasi-resonance vs exact resonance] Eq. (7) defines the connectivity strength p_6(k1) as a sum of |A_{k1...k6}| over modes satisfying the quasi-resonance conditions, but this quantity is used as the measure of energy-transfer capability without a derivation that it is proportional to the actual transfer rate. The kinetic equation (3) involves g^2 times products of D-factors and interaction coefficients squared, so a linear sum of |A| is not an obvious proxy. The size-dependent conclusion in Fig. 2, which underpins the paper's central claim that quasi-resonances dominate in large systems, would be more convincing if p_6 were compared against the actual energy-transfer rates obtained from the kinetic equations or from the full dynamics. As written, the identification of p_6 with resonance strength is an assumption that needs explicit justification or a direct numerical test.
  3. [Quasi-resonance vs exact resonance] The scaling Omega ~ g^2, used to convert the Omega-dependence in Fig. 2 into a nonlinearity-dependence, is asserted with a reference to 'Supplementary Section 3' that is not part of the reviewable text. This scaling is central to the interpretation that quasi-resonance strength decreases with reduced nonlinearity while exact-resonance strength does not. The derivation of Omega ~ g^2 should be provided in the main text or in an accessible supplement, because the three-regime interpretation in Fig. 4 relies directly on this relation.
  4. [Validation of the pairwise equalization on the precise dynamics] The simulations in Fig. 3 confirm pairwise equalization for a specific resonance set (1,3,12,-1,-3,-12) in an N=32 lattice, but the paper never probes a system with N divisible by 3, where non-pairing exact resonances exist. All system sizes considered (N=16,32,64,128,2048,8192) are not divisible by 3. Since the classification for N divisible by 3 explicitly includes additional non-pairing solutions, the claim that the pairwise-equalization mechanism is general would be strengthened by at least one numerical test in a system with N divisible by 3, or by an explicit argument explaining why the non-pairing solutions do not alter the qualitative dynamics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'quasi-resonances--overn energy transfer' contains a typo; it should read 'govern energy transfer.'
  2. [Introduction] The sentence 'exact resonance remains size-independent' appears to be a mistake: Fig. 2 shows that exact-resonance connectivity decreases with system size, and the preceding sentence correctly states that exact resonance strength is independent of nonlinearity. The word 'size-independent' should be 'nonlinearity-independent' or the intended meaning should be clarified.
  3. [Quasi-resonance vs exact resonance] In the sentence defining quasi-resonance conditions, the citation appears as an empty bracket 'conditions[]'; a reference to the wave-turbulence literature or to the supplement should be supplied.
  4. [Eq. (7)] The expression for p_6(k1) in Eq. (7) shows only a momentum-conservation delta and does not explicitly display the frequency quasi-resonance condition |omega_{k1}+...|<Omega that is described in the text. The summation notation should make clear that the frequency condition is imposed; otherwise the expression is ambiguous and appears to sum over all momentum-conserving sextuplets.
  5. [Kinetic equations and 6-wave exact resonance solutions] The derivation of the simplified kinetic equations (4) and (5) from the general equation (3) is not shown; only the final forms are stated. Even if the classification of resonances is accepted, the algebraic reduction leading to the specific coefficients (e.g., 75/128) should be presented or a clear reference to a derivation in the supplement should be provided.
  6. [Symmetry-induced constraints in kinetic equations and the collapse of exact resonances] The statements 'It can be prove that the maximum value...' and 'It can further show that...' are grammatically awkward and cite 'Supplementary Section 2' without providing the derivation. These analytical results should be either proven in the main text or included in an accessible supplement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: kinetic-equation invariants and entropy plateau are mathematical consequences of the displayed equations; deferred resonance-classification and Omega~g^2 proofs are missing-support risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is internally self-contained: the 6-wave kinetic equation (3) is derived from the FPUT-6 Hamiltonian in Methods, carries an explicit g^2 factor, and the pairwise equalization invariants d(D_k+D_-k)/dt=0 and d(D_k1+D_k2-D_-k1-D_-k2)/dt=0 follow algebraically from the antisymmetric bracket structure of the simplified 3-3 symmetry and quasi-symmetry equations (4)-(5). The entropy plateau <s(t)>/(N-1)~0.09 is presented as a computed consequence of the (E_k+E_-k)/2 termination rule in Supplementary Section 2, not as a fitted target. The self-citations [28,30,31] are used for scaling conventions and for the connectivity measure p6, but the displayed equations already carry the g^2 dependence and the p6 definition is given in the text, so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The main caveats are deferred proofs: the classification excluding 1-5, 5-1, 6-0, 2-4, and 4-2 exact resonances for N not divisible by 3 is deferred to Supplementary Section 1, and the identification Omega~g^2 is deferred to Supplementary Section 3. Also, exact-resonance strength being independent of g is a definitional property of the Omega=0 condition. These are missing-support or definitional features, not circular reductions: none of the paper's central claims is equivalent by construction to an input or to a prior self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on the stochastic closure of wave turbulence, the (unproved) classification of exact 6-wave resonances, the scaling Omega ~ g^2, and the identification of connectivity p_6 as the transfer rate. No parameters are fitted to data; the arguments are analytical and computational. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The stochastic phase and stochastic amplitude closure (random phases and amplitudes) is valid for deriving the 6-wave kinetic equations.
    Invoked in Methods (derivation of kinetic equations) and attributed to wave turbulence theory [44]. The symmetry argument operates on these kinetic equations; if the closure fails, the pairwise equalization may not reflect true dynamics.
  • domain assumption All 6-wave exact resonance solutions for N not divisible by 3 are 3-3 symmetry (k,-k pairs) and 3-3 quasi-symmetry solutions; 1-5, 5-1, 6-0, 2-4, 4-2 processes have no solutions.
    Used to simplify Eq. (3) to Eqs. (4)-(5), leading to d/dt(D_k + D_-k)=0. Proof deferred to Supplementary Section 1; not shown in main text.
  • domain assumption Quasi-resonance width Omega scales as g^2.
    Used in the connectivity calculation in Fig. 2(a) and the interpretation of regimes. Derivation in Supplementary Section 3; in main text it is stated as a physical monotonic relation.
  • domain assumption The connectivity p_6(k) is a valid proxy for the energy diffusion rate through 6-wave interactions.
    Appears in Eq. (7) and underlies the argument that exact resonance strength decays with N while quasi-resonance strength grows.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting Multi-Wave Resonance in Classical Lattices: Quasi-Resonances, Not Exact Resonance, Govern Energy Redistribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSZ4CLJ4

@misc{pith2026250705551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting Multi-Wave Resonance in Classical Lattices: Quasi-Resonances, Not Exact Resonance, Govern Energy Redistribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSZ4CLJ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05551}
}
read the original abstract

The multi-wave exact resonance condition is a fundamental principle for understanding energy transfer in condensed matter systems, yet the dynamical evolution of waves satisfying this condition remains unexplored. Here, we reveal that the multi-wave resonant kinetic equations possess distinctive symmetry properties that preferentially induce energy equalization between counter-propagating waves of identical frequency. This initial equalization disrupts the exact resonance condition, rendering it dynamically invalid. We further demonstrate that nonlinearity-mediated multi-wave quasi-resonances--not exact resonances--overn energy transfer and drive the system toward thermalization. Crucially, the strength of exact resonances decays with increasing system size, while quasi-resonance strength grows. Moreover, exact resonance strength remains independent of nonlinearity, whereas quasi-resonance strength diminishes with reduced nonlinearity. These observations provide additional evidence supporting the aforementioned conclusion while elucidating the size-dependent thermalization characteristics in lattice systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Exact resonance dynamics under symmetry con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quasi-resonance vs. exact resonance. (a) shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Symmetry constraints in the precise dynamics of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Thermalization time of FPUT-6 lattices as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Universality of symmetry constraints. (a) and (b) show the time evolution of the energy for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peierls, Ann

    R. Peierls, Ann. Phys.395, 1055 (1929)

    1929

  2. [2]

    R. H. Dalitz and R. E. Peierls, inSelected Scientific Pa- pers of Sir Rudolf Peierls (With Commentary), Vol. 19 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997) pp. 15–48

    1997

  3. [3]

    G. J. Chaplain, J. M. De Ponti, A. Colombi, R. Fuentes- Dominguez, P. Dryburg, D. Pieris, R. J. Smith, A. Clare, M. Clark, and R. V. Craster, Nature Communications11, 3267 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    X. Qian, J. Zhou, and G. Chen, Nature Materials20, 1188 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    N. K. Ravichandran and D. Broido, Nature Communica- tions12, 3473 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    S. Li, Z. Qin, H. Wu, M. Li, M. Kunz, A. Alatas, A. Kavner, and Y. Hu, Nature612, 459 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    N. K. Ravichandran and D. Broido, Nature Communica- tions10, 827 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Fermi, J

    E. Fermi, J. Pasta, and S. Ulam, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Report No. LA-1940, 1955 https://dx.doi.org/10.2172/4376203

    doi:10.2172/4376203 1940

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Dauxois, Physics Today61, 55 (2008)

    T. Dauxois, Physics Today61, 55 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Lepri, Phys

    S. Lepri, Phys. Rev. E58, 7165 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Poggi, S

    P. Poggi, S. Ruffo, and H. Kantz, Phys. Rev. E52, 307 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    De Luca, A

    J. De Luca, A. J. Lichtenberg, and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev. E51, 2877 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    De Luca, A

    J. De Luca, A. J. Lichtenberg, and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev. E60, 3781 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Parisi, Europhys

    G. Parisi, Europhys. Lett.40, 357 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Casetti, M

    L. Casetti, M. Cerruti-Sola, M. Pettini, and E. G. D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. E55, 6566 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    Cretegny, T

    T. Cretegny, T. Dauxois, S. Ruffo, and A. Torcini, Phys- ica D121, 109 (1998)

    1998

  9. [17]

    Benettin and A

    G. Benettin and A. Ponno, J. Stat. Phys.144, 793 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Flach, Chem

    S. Flach, Chem. Phys.375, 548 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Laptyeva, M

    T. Laptyeva, M. Ivanchenko, and S. Flach, J. Phys. A 47, 493001 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    V. E. Zakharov,What Is Integrability?(Springer, Berlin, 1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    N. J. Zabusky and M. D. Kruskal, Phys. Rev. Lett.15, 240 (1965)

    1965

  14. [22]

    Onorato, L

    M. Onorato, L. Vozella, D. Proment, and Y. V. Lvov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 4208 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Y. V. Lvov and M. Onorato, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 144301 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Pistone, M

    L. Pistone, M. Onorato, and S. Chibbaro, Europhys. Lett.121, 44003 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    W. Fu, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhao, New J. Phys.21, 043009 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    W. Fu, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhao, Phys. Rev. E100, 010101(R) (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Pistone, S

    L. Pistone, S. Chibbaro, M. D. Bustamante, Y. Lvov, V, and M. Onorato, Math. Eng.1, 672 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Z. Wang, W. Fu, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 186401 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Onorato, Y

    M. Onorato, Y. Lvov, G. Dematteis, and S. Chibbaro, Phys. Rep.1040, 1 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Z. Wang, W. Fu, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 217102 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    W. Lin, W. Fu, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, and H. Zhao, Phys. Rev. E111, 024122 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Aubourg, A

    Q. Aubourg, A. Campagne, C. Peureux, F. Ardhuin, J. Sommeria, S. Viboud, and N. Mordant, Phys. Rev. Fluids2, 114802 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    V. E. Zakharov, S. I. Badulin, V. V. Geogjaev, and A. N. Pushkarev, Earth Space Sci6, 540 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Connaughton, C

    C. Connaughton, C. Josserand, A. Picozzi, Y. Pomeau, and S. Rica, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 263901 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    C. Sun, S. Jia, C. Barsi, S. Rica, A. Picozzi, and J. W. Fleischer, Nat. Phys.8, 470 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Y. Zhu, B. Semisalov, G. Krstulovic, and S. Nazarenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 133001 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Zaslavskii and V

    M. Zaslavskii and V. Polnikov, Izv. Atmos. Oceanic Phys. 34, 609 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Holloway, J

    G. Holloway, J. Phys. Oceanogr.10, 906 (1980)

    1980

  31. [39]

    Pan and D

    Y. Pan and D. K. Yue, J. Fluid Mech.816, R1 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Pushkarev, Eur

    A. Pushkarev, Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids18, 345 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Connaughton, S

    C. Connaughton, S. Nazarenko, and A. Pushkarev, Phys. Rev. E63, 046306 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Kartashova, Phys

    E. Kartashova, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 214502 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    V. S. L’vov and S. Nazarenko, Phys. Rev. E82, 056322 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Nazarenko,Wave turbulence, Vol

    S. Nazarenko,Wave turbulence, Vol. 825 (Springer, Berlin, 2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Bustamante, K

    M. Bustamante, K. Hutchinson, Y. Lvov, and M. Ono- rato, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat.73, 437 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    F. M. Izrailev and B. V. Chirikov, Sov. Phys. Dokl.11, 30 (1966)

    1966

  39. [47]

    B. V. Chirikov, Phys. Rep.52, 263 (1979)

    1979

  40. [48]

    N. N. Nekhoroshev, Russian Mathematical Surveys32, 1 (1977)

    1977

  41. [49]

    Benettin, L

    G. Benettin, L. Galgani, and A. Giorgilli, Nature311, 444 (1984)

    1984

  42. [50]

    Berchialla, A

    L. Berchialla, A. Giorgilli, and S. Paleari, Phys. Lett. A 321, 167 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    Yoshida, Phys

    H. Yoshida, Phys. Lett. A150, 262 (1990). METHODS Derivation of the kinetic equations The rescaled Hamiltonian of the FPUT-6 lattice takes the form ˜H= X j " ˜p2 j 2 + 1 2 (˜qj+1 −˜qj)2 + 1 6 g(˜qj −˜qj+1)6 # =H0(˜qj,˜pj) + X j 1 6 g(˜qj −˜qj+1)6. (8) The Hamiltonian of the ha...

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.