Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Ideal incompressible axisymmetric MHD: Uncovering finite-time singularities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 When the initial magnetic-to-velocity swirl ratio is not 1, 3D axisymmetric ideal MHD is reported to develop potential finite-time singularities: shear-type for C<1, cusp-type for C>1, with C=1 exactly stationary.

desk verdict Plausible but not yet convincing numerical evidence for a new cusp-type FTS in axisymmetric ideal MHD; the paper needs a resolution study before the singularity claim can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06842 v1 pith:E7NWO4KQ submitted 2025-07-09 physics.flu-dyn physics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph

Venkata Sai Swetha Kolluru , Rahul Pandit This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph MSC 35Q3535B4465M7076W05 PACS 47.65.-d
keywords axisymmetricidealMHDfinite-timesingularityanalyticity-stripmethodpseudospectralsimulationswirlratiocusptygerswall-boundedcylinder
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 reports numerical evidence that ideal incompressible magnetohydrodynamic flow in a wall-bounded axisymmetric cylinder can develop singularities in finite time even when started from smooth velocity and magnetic fields. The field ratio at initialization, C, controls the outcome: for C<1 the swirl components at the wall sharpen into square profiles, for C>1 they sharpen into cusps, and for C=1 the terms driving evolution cancel and the state is stationary. If the claim holds, it would be the first numerical indication of a finite-time singularity for 3D ideal MHD in this geometry, and it would introduce a cusp-type singularity not previously seen in axisymmetric hydrodynamic PDEs. The argument uses the analyticity-strip method on Fourier-Chebyshev spectra at the wall, together with the Caflisch-Klapper-Steele criterion and a study of secondary flows set up by the effective pressure.

What carries the argument

The control parameter is C in the initial condition $b_\theta=Cu_\theta$. In the transformed-variable equations the term $\partial_z((u_1)^2 - (b_1)^2)$ couples velocity and magnetic swirl; when C=1 the $b_1$ terms cancel the $u_1$ terms identically, making the state exactly stationary. The diagnostic machinery is the analyticity-strip method: exponential tails of Fourier-Chebyshev energy spectra at the wall are fit to $|k|^{-n(t)}e^{-k\delta_T(t)}$, and the vanishing $\delta_T$ marks the singularity time. The secondary-flow analysis explains the square versus cusp difference through the effective pressure $P=p+|b|^2/2$, whose radial gradient balances the swirl centrifugal and magnetic-tension forces at the wall.

What would settle it

Recompute the same initial conditions at higher resolution (e.g., Nr=512, Nz=1024) and track $\delta_T(t)$ until spectral convergence fails: if the fitted $t_*(C)$ shifts significantly or $\delta_T$ plateaus above zero before tygers appear, the finite-time singularity claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the axisymmetric ideal incompressible MHD equations in a cylinder, with $u_\theta/r=100e^{-30(1-r^2)^4}\sin(2\pi z/L)$ and $b_\theta=Cu_\theta$ at $t=0$, the paper claims that the distance $\delta_T(t)$ of the nearest complex singularity from the real axis follows $\delta_T\sim |t-t_*(C)|^{\gamma(C)}$ and vanishes at finite $t_*(C)$ whenever $C \neq 1$. The singularity time decreases as C moves away from 1; the swirl velocities at the wall evolve into square profiles for C<1 and into cusps for C>1, with vorticity and current growing rapidly in both cases. The pressure field, through the balance $\partial_r(p+b_\theta^2/2)=(u_\theta^2-b_\theta^2)/r$ at the wall, sets up secondary flows that advect the swirl in opposite directions for the two regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The singularity claim rests on the assumption that a single fixed-grid run at (Nr=256, Nz=512), stopped once spectral convergence is lost to tygers, reliably captures the vanishing of the analyticity-strip width without grid-convergence artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the evidence holds, the 3D ideal MHD global-regularity problem admits smooth initial data whose solutions develop finite-time singularities in a wall-bounded axisymmetric cylinder.
  • The singularity structure is not universal: below C=1 it resembles the known wall-bounded axisymmetric Euler singularity, while above C=1 a cusp-type singularity appears that has not been reported for such systems.
  • The C=1 family is exactly stationary, so $t_*(C)$ increases toward infinity as C approaches 1 and decreases away from it, giving a quantitative prediction for the singular time as a function of initial magnetic field strength.
  • The appearance of tygers and eventual spectral thermalization marks the limit of validity of the singularity analysis, so similar simulations must stop before that point to avoid misreading thermalization as blow-up.
  • The reconstructed effective-pressure maps identify the mechanism driving the secondary flows, giving a physical picture that could anchor proofs or improved singularity constructions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because the cancellation at C=1 is algebraic and exact, a perturbative analysis in $C-1$ should determine whether the stationary state is a saddle or a center; such a linear-stability study would sharpen the singularity-time curve $t_*(C)$ that the paper reports.
  • Editorial inference: The two singularity types likely leave different signatures in the vorticity and current scaling exponents; computing those exponents directly from higher-resolution runs could give a sharper falsifier than the analyticity-strip fit alone.
  • Editorial inference: In a viscous and resistive MHD system the putative singularities would be regularized into thin boundary layers near the wall; the paper's initial data could therefore be used to test boundary-layer scaling laws for magnetic stirring or dynamo-like flows.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Fourier-Chebyshev pseudospectral study of the 3D axisymmetric ideal, incompressible MHD equations in a wall-bounded cylinder with no-flow boundary conditions for the velocity and perfectly conducting boundary conditions for the magnetic field. Starting from smooth initial data u_theta/r = 100 exp(-30(1-r^2)^4) sin(2*pi*z/L) and b_theta = C u_theta, the authors study the approach to a potential finite-time singularity for C != 1. Using the CKS criterion and the analyticity-strip method applied to the wall energy spectrum, they find that the analyticity-strip width delta_T(t) decreases as a power law |t-t*(C)|^{gamma(C)} and estimate the C-dependent singularity time t*(C). They report two real-space scenarios: for C<1 the wall swirl profile develops a square profile with shear at (r=1,z=L/2), while for C>1 it develops cusps at z=L/4 and 3L/4; the case C=1 is exactly stationary. The direction of the secondary flows is explained in terms of the radial pressure balance and the effective pressure P = p + |b|^2/2.

Significance. If correct, the result would be the first numerical evidence for a finite-time singularity in the 3D axisymmetric ideal MHD equations from smooth initial data, and the cusp-type singularity for C>1 would be a new singularity structure not previously reported for axisymmetric ideal MHD. The work has several strengths: it applies standard diagnostics (CKS, analyticity strip) in a conventional way, it provides an exact stationary check at C=1, it verifies conservation of total energy and magnetic helicity in the supplementary material, and it identifies a physical mechanism through the pressure field and secondary flows. However, the central quantitative evidence is currently based on a single fixed-grid resolution with no convergence study, no reported fit parameters, and no error bars; until these are supplied, the claim is not yet compelling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods C / Fig. 2] The central FTS claim rests on the analyticity-strip fits at a single resolution (N=256, M=512). The manuscript never shows that delta_T(t), t*(C), or gamma(C) are stable under resolution increase. This is load-bearing because the fit window excludes delta_T < Delta z (footnote 38) and the analysis is stopped when tygers destroy spectral convergence (Methods C): on a fixed grid, a decreasing fitted delta_T can be produced by the loss of spectral resolution before a true singularity, and the onset of tygers is itself resolution-dependent. Please add at least one higher-resolution run (e.g., 512x1024) for representative C values, show delta_T(t) and the resulting t*(C) and gamma(C) as a function of resolution, and quantify fit uncertainties; without this, the word 'compelling' in the abstract is not supported.
  2. [Fig. 2 and main text after Fig. 2] The fitted singularity times t*(C) and exponents gamma(C) are the quantitative output of the paper, but they are never reported in the text or in a table, and no error bars are given. Fig. 2(c) shows t*(C) only graphically, and the text/figure cross-references are inconsistent: the text refers to the log-log delta_T versus |t-t*| plot as 'Fig. 2(a)' while the caption places it in panel (b), and the t*(C) plot is called 'Fig. 2(b)' but appears as panel (c). Please report t*(C) and gamma(C) with uncertainties (e.g., from the LMFIT covariance) and correct the cross-references.
  3. [Methods C, Eq. (11)] The extraction of delta_T(t) via the nonlinear fit to Eq. (11) is not described with enough detail for reproducibility: the manuscript does not state the fitting window in k, how the k^{-n(t)} prefactor and the oscillatory factor e^{ikx*} are handled, or how sensitive delta_T is to these choices. Since the FTS claim is based entirely on these fits, please provide this information and, ideally, show delta_T(t) from fits with different window choices to demonstrate robustness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text, initial condition] The cylinder length L in the z-direction is never specified; please state its value (e.g., L=1, as in Refs. [30, 32]).
  2. [Main text, analyticity-strip description] The sentence 'we use the asymptotic relation (11) to extract the slope delta_T(t) of the of the semi-log plot' contains a typo ('of the of') and should be corrected.
  3. [References] References [36] and [49] are the same paper (Sulem, Sulem, and Frisch, J. Comput. Phys. 50, 138 (1983)) and should be consolidated.
  4. [Methods B] The sentence 'If N=M, the spacing between Chebyshev nodes ... is much smaller than the spacing between the Fourier nodes. Therefore, we use M>N' does not state the logical connection; please explain that the Chebyshev grid clusters near the walls, so more Fourier modes are needed in z.
  5. [Supplementary Fig. F1] The supplementary material shows that the numerical conservation of cross helicity deteriorates for t>10^{-3}; please comment on whether this could affect the reported dynamics or the analyticity-strip fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analyticity-strip diagnostics and power-law fits are standard extrapolative evidence, and self-citations supply numerical methods rather than the singularity conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the analyticity-strip width δ_T(t), extracted from Fourier-Chebyshev spectra via the standard asymptotic form (11), decreases to zero at a fitted time t*(C). This is an inference from a measured diagnostic, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion: δ_T(t) is obtained independently from the spectral slope at each time, and t*(C) is then obtained by fitting the time series of δ_T to a power law. The fit is extrapolative rather than circular, because the fitted parameter t* is not inserted back into the definition of δ_T or into the governing equations as an assumption. The C=1 stationary case is presented as an internal consistency check from cancellation in Eqs. (6), and the CKS criterion is a standard sufficient condition for regularity, not a criterion that assumes the singularity it detects. The paper's self-citations to Ref. [32] supply the bounded-domain extension of the analyticity-strip method and the Tau Poisson solver; these are methodological tools previously validated on the axisymmetric Euler problem, and they do not assume the MHD finite-time-singularity result being claimed. Citations to tyger literature [32,40,41] only identify when spectral convergence is lost and the analysis is stopped, which is a resolution/truncation caveat rather than a circular load-bearing step. The main weakness of the evidence is numerical: a single fixed-grid run at (Nr=256, Nz=512) without a grid-convergence study, and truncation of the fit for δ < Δz, leaves room for Galerkin-truncation effects to mimic an approach to singularity. That is a correctness or robustness risk, not circularity: no fitted input is renamed as an independent prediction, and no conclusion is forced by self-citation or by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted singularity parameters from the analyticity-strip method: t*(C) and gamma(C) are free parameters extracted by nonlinear fits, and the C regime is a control parameter. No new physical entities are invented. The axioms are standard tools (CKS criterion, analyticity-strip assumption) plus the untested assumption that the single-resolution runs are converged before thermalization sets in.

free parameters (4)
  • C (initial magnetic-to-velocity swirl ratio) = 0.5, 0.8, 0.9, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5
    Chosen control parameter in the initial data b_theta = C u_theta; the entire claim is parameterized by C, with C=1 giving exact stationarity.
  • Singularity time t*(C) = Values reported in Fig. 2(c), not tabulated
    Obtained from nonlinear power-law fit of the analyticity-strip width delta_T(t) ~ |t-t*|^gamma. The finite-time singularity claim rests on this extrapolated parameter.
  • Singularity exponent gamma(C) = Not tabulated
    Fitted exponent in the same power-law fit; no error bars are provided.
  • Analyticity-strip width delta_T(t) fit parameters = Slope of exponential tail in Fourier-Chebyshev spectra, Eq. (11)
    Fitted at each time from ST(r=1,k,t); the fit-window choice and the exclusion of delta < Delta z affect the extracted t*(C).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The solution is analytic in a complex strip around the real axis up to near the singularity, so the Fourier spectrum follows Eq. (11) with an exponential tail.
    Assumed by the analyticity-strip method in Methods C(b). If the nearest singularity is not simple or if multiple singularities compete, the extracted delta could be biased.
  • standard math The Caflisch-Klapper-Steele criterion (Eq. 10) is a valid blow-up criterion for 3D ideal incompressible MHD.
    This is a theorem from Ref. [25]; used as a diagnostic (Fig. 1a).
  • domain assumption The initial data u_theta/r = 100 exp(-30(1-r^2)^4) sin(2*pi*z/L) is smooth and compatible with the boundary conditions.
    Stated in the text; smoothness of the starting fields is required for the singularity claim to be about smooth initial data.
  • ad hoc to paper The Galerkin-truncated system behaves like the untruncated PDE up to the time the analyticity-strip analysis is stopped, so tyger/thermalization effects do not contaminate the extracted delta_T(t).
    The paper stops the analysis when spectral convergence is lost (Methods C), but provides no resolution study to show that the pre-thermalization dynamics are converged.
  • ad hoc to paper At t=0 the flow is instantaneously stationary, so the radial momentum balance in Eq. (2) yields the initial pressure.
    Used to interpret the pressure field in Fig. 6. It is a modeling assumption for diagnostics, not part of the singularity claim itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ideal incompressible axisymmetric MHD: Uncovering finite-time singularities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7NWO4KQ

@misc{pith2026250706842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ideal incompressible axisymmetric MHD: Uncovering finite-time singularities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7NWO4KQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06842}
}
read the original abstract

We provide compelling numerical evidence for the development of (potential) finite-time singularities in the three-dimensional (3D) axisymmetric, ideal, incompressible magnetohydrodynamic (IMHD) equations, in a wall-bounded cylindrical domain, starting from smooth initial data, for the velocity and magnetic fields. We demonstrate that the nature of the singularity depends crucially on the relative strength C of the velocity and magnetic fields at the time of initialisation: (i) if C < 1, then the swirl components, at the wall, evolve towards square profiles that lead to the intensification of shear at the meridional plane (r = 1, z = L/2) and the development of a finite-time singularity; (ii) if C = 1, there is no temporal evolution; (iii) if C > 1, then the swirl components, at the wall, evolve towards a cusp-type singularity. By examining the spatiotemporal evolution of the pressure, we obtain insights into the development of these singularities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06842 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Plot vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plots versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plot versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Streamline plots of the secondary flows in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    00 0. 80 0. 60 1 . 40 1. 20 C FIG. 2. Plots versus t of (a) the analyticity-strip width δ T (and nT in the inset) obtained by performing the nonlinear fit (11) of the total energy Fourier spectrum at the wall ( r = 1) for flows initiated with different choices of C in the initial data. (b) Log-log plot versus |t− t∗ | of log δ T and the corresponding power-l...

    work page

  2. [2]

    C. R. Doering and J. D. Gibbon, Applied analysis of the Navier-Stokes equations. Cambridge university press, 1995

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    An introduction to the navier-stokes initial-boundary value problem,

    G. P. Galdi, “An introduction to the navier-stokes initial-boundary value problem,” in Fundamental directions in mathematical fluid mechanics, pp. 1–70, Springer, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Foias, O

    C. Foias, O. Manley, R. Rosa, and R. Temam, Navier-Stokes equations and turbulence, vol. 83. Cambridge University Press, 2001

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    J. C. Robinson, J. L. Rodrigo, and W. Sadowski, The three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equations: Classical theory, vol. 157. Cambridge university press, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    P. G. Lemari´ e-Rieusset, The Navier-Stokes problem in the 21st century. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    The navier–stokes regularity problem,

    J. C. Robinson, “The navier–stokes regularity problem,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 378, no. 2174, p. 20190526, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    J. A. Carlson, A. Jaffe, and A. Wiles, The millennium prize problems. American Mathematical Soc., 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    decay rapidly at large distances

    To quote from Ref. [7]: “Show that the Navier–Stokes equations on Euclidean 3-space have a unique, smooth, finite energy solution for all time greater than or equal to zero, given smooth, divergence-free, initial conditions which “decay rapidly at large distances. ” Alternative...

  2. [10]

    Non-stationary flow of an ideal incompressible liquid,

    V. I. Yudovich, “Non-stationary flow of an ideal incompressible liquid,” USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1407–1456, 1963

    1963

  3. [11]

    Statistical hydrodynamics,

    L. Onsager, “Statistical hydrodynamics,” Nuovo Cimento, vol. 6 (Suppl.), p. 279–287, 1949

    1949

  4. [12]

    Onsager and the theory of hydrodynamic turbulence,

    G. L. Eyink and K. R. Sreenivasan, “Onsager and the theory of hydrodynamic turbulence,” Reviews of modern physics, vol. 78, no. 1, p. 87, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Global regularity for the 2d mhd and tropical climate model with horizontal dissipa- tion,

    M. Paicu and N. Zhu, “Global regularity for the 2d mhd and tropical climate model with horizontal dissipa- tion,” Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 99, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Biskamp, Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

    D. Biskamp, Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  7. [15]

    A. R. Choudhuri, The physics of fluids and plasmas: an introduction for astrophysicists. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  8. [16]

    J. H. Goedbloed and S. Poedts, Principles of magnetohydrodynamics: with applications to laboratory and astrophysical plasmas. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    J. P. Freidberg, ideal MHD. Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Galtier, Introduction to modern magnetohydrodynamics

    S. Galtier, Introduction to modern magnetohydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    P. A. Davidson, Introduction to magnetohydrodynamics, vol. 55. Cambridge university press, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    D. A. Gurnett and A. Bhattacharjee, Introduction to plasma physics: With space, laboratory and astrophysical applications. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    J. P. Goedbloed, H. Goedbloed, R. Keppens, and S. Poedts, Magnetohydrodynamics: of laboratory and astrophysical plasmas. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Ideal evolution of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence when imposing taylor-green symmetries,

    M. E. Brachet, M. Bustamante, G. Krstulovic, P. D. Mininni, A. Pouquet, and D. Rosenberg, “Ideal evolution of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence when imposing taylor-green symmetries,” Physical review E, vol. 87, no. 1, p. 013110, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    The signature of initial conditions on magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,

    V. Dallas and A. Alexakis, “The signature of initial conditions on magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters, vol. 788, no. 2, p. L36, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Finite dissipation and intermittency in magnetohydrodynamics,

    P. D. Mininni and A. Pouquet, “Finite dissipation and intermittency in magnetohydrodynamics,” Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 80, no. 2, p. 025401, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Nonuniversality and finite dissipation in decaying magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,

    M. F. Linkmann, A. Berera, W. D. McComb, and M. E. McKay, “Nonuniversality and finite dissipation in decaying magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,” Physical review letters, vol. 114, no. 23, p. 235001, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Remarks on singularities, dimension and energy dissipation for ideal hydrodynamics and mhd,

    R. E. Caflisch, I. Klapper, and G. Steele, “Remarks on singularities, dimension and energy dissipation for ideal hydrodynamics and mhd,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 443–455, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    The three-dimensional euler equations: how much do we know?,

    J. Gibbon, “The three-dimensional euler equations: how much do we know?,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 237, no. 14-17, pp. 1894–1904, 2008

    1904

  20. [28]

    Blow-up or no blow-up? a unified computational and analytic approach to 3d incompressible euler and navier–stokes equations,

    T. Y. Hou, “Blow-up or no blow-up? a unified computational and analytic approach to 3d incompressible euler and navier–stokes equations,” Acta Numerica, vol. 18, pp. 277–346, 2009. 12

    2009

  21. [29]

    Evidence for a singularity in ideal magnetohydrodynamics: implications for fast reconnection,

    R. M. Kerr and A. Brandenburg, “Evidence for a singularity in ideal magnetohydrodynamics: implications for fast reconnection,” Physical review letters, vol. 83, no. 6, p. 1155, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    Current-sheet formation in 3d ideal incompressible magnetohydrodynamics,

    R. Grauer and C. Marliani, “Current-sheet formation in 3d ideal incompressible magnetohydrodynamics,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 84, no. 21, p. 4850, 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Potentially singular solutions of the 3D axisymmetric Euler equations,

    G. Luo and T. Y. Hou, “Potentially singular solutions of the 3D axisymmetric Euler equations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 36, pp. 12968–12973, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    A fluid mechanic’s analysis of the teacup singularity,

    D. Barkley, “A fluid mechanic’s analysis of the teacup singularity,” Proceedings of the royal society of london. Series A, Containing papers of a mathematical and physical character, vol. 476, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Insights from a pseudospectral study of a potentially singular solution of the three-dimensional axisymmetric incompressible euler equation,

    S. S. V. Kolluru, P. Sharma, and R. Pandit, “Insights from a pseudospectral study of a potentially singular solution of the three-dimensional axisymmetric incompressible euler equation,” Physical Review E, vol. 105, no. 6, p. 065107, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    The cauchy-lagrange method for 3d-axisymmetric wall-bounded and potentially singular incompressible euler flows,

    T. Hertel, N. Besse, and U. Frisch, “The cauchy-lagrange method for 3d-axisymmetric wall-bounded and potentially singular incompressible euler flows,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 449, p. 110758, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    [59, 60]

    Cusp singularities have been at interfaces between different fluids, as discussed, e.g., in Refs. [59, 60]

  28. [36]

    Blowup or no blowup? the interplay between theory and numerics,

    T. Y. Hou and R. Li, “Blowup or no blowup? the interplay between theory and numerics,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 237, no. 14-17, pp. 1937–1944, 2008

    1937

  29. [38]

    We have used the LMFIT package from Python to perform the nonlinear fitting

  30. [39]

    From the fit window, we exclude the range for which δ < ∆ z, where ∆ z is the smallest grid spacing in X256, 512

  31. [40]

    Dynamics of partially thermalized solutions of the burgers equation,

    P. C. Di Leoni, P. D. Mininni, and M. E. Brachet, “Dynamics of partially thermalized solutions of the burgers equation,” Physical Review Fluids, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 014603, 2018

    2018

  32. [41]

    Resonance phenomenon for the galerkin-truncated burgers and euler equations,

    S. S. Ray, U. Frisch, S. Nazarenko, and T. Matsumoto, “Resonance phenomenon for the galerkin-truncated burgers and euler equations,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 84, p. 016301, Jul 2011

    2011

  33. [42]

    Novel spectral methods for shock capturing and the removal of tygers in computational fluid dynamics,

    S. S. V. Kolluru, N. Besse, and R. Pandit, “Novel spectral methods for shock capturing and the removal of tygers in computational fluid dynamics,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 519, p. 113446, 2024

    2024

  34. [43]

    The role of ekman pumping and the dominance of swirl in confined flows driven by lorentz forces,

    P. Davidson, D. Kinnear, R. Lingwood, D. Short, and X. He, “The role of ekman pumping and the dominance of swirl in confined flows driven by lorentz forces,” European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 693–711, 1999

    1999

  35. [44]

    Helicity segregation by ekman pumping in laminar rotating flows with gravity orthogonal to rotation,

    A. Ojha, M. Anas, A. Ranjan, P. Joshi, and M. K. Verma, “Helicity segregation by ekman pumping in laminar rotating flows with gravity orthogonal to rotation,” Physical Review Fluids, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 034801, 2022

    2022

  36. [45]

    The spatial segregation of kinetic helicity in geodynamo simulations,

    A. Ranjan and P. Davidson, “The spatial segregation of kinetic helicity in geodynamo simulations,” Geophysical Monograph Series, p. 241, 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    For the 3DAE cf. Refs. [30–32]

  38. [47]

    Effective dissipation and turbulence in spectrally truncated euler flows,

    C. Cichowlas, P. Bona ¨ ıti, F. Debbasch, and M. Brachet, “Effective dissipation and turbulence in spectrally truncated euler flows,” Physical review letters, vol. 95, no. 26, p. 264502, 2005

    2005

  39. [48]

    Suppressing thermalization and construct- ing weak solutions in truncated inviscid equations of hydrodynamics: Lessons from the burgers equation,

    S. D. Murugan, U. Frisch, S. Nazarenko, N. Besse, and S. S. Ray, “Suppressing thermalization and construct- ing weak solutions in truncated inviscid equations of hydrodynamics: Lessons from the burgers equation,” Physical Review Research, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 033202, 2020

    2020

  40. [49]

    Uhlmann, The need for de-aliasing in a Chebyshev pseudo-spectral method

    M. Uhlmann, The need for de-aliasing in a Chebyshev pseudo-spectral method. PIK, 2000

    2000

  41. [50]

    Tracing complex singularities with spectral methods,

    C. Sulem, P.-L. Sulem, and H. Frisch, “Tracing complex singularities with spectral methods,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 138–161, 1983

    1983

  42. [51]

    Remarks on the breakdown of smooth solutions for the 3-d euler equations,

    J. T. Beale, T. Kato, and A. Majda, “Remarks on the breakdown of smooth solutions for the 3-d euler equations,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 61–66, 1984

    1984

  43. [52]

    Geometry of singular structures in magnetohydrodynamic flows,

    R. Grauer and C. Marliani, “Geometry of singular structures in magnetohydrodynamic flows,” Physics of Plasmas, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 2544–2552, 1998

    1998

  44. [53]

    Adaptive mesh refinement for singular solutions of the incompressible euler equations,

    R. Grauer, C. Marliani, and K. Germaschewski, “Adaptive mesh refinement for singular solutions of the incompressible euler equations,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 80, pp. 4177–4180, May 1998

    1998

  45. [54]

    Small-scale structure of the taylor–green vortex,

    M. E. Brachet, D. I. Meiron, S. A. Orszag, B. Nickel, R. H. Morf, and U. Frisch, “Small-scale structure of the taylor–green vortex,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 130, pp. 411–452, 1983

    1983

  46. [55]

    Study of complex singularities by filtered spectral method,

    S. Kida, “Study of complex singularities by filtered spectral method,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1542–1555, 1986

    1986

  47. [56]

    Numerical evidence of smooth self-similar dynamics and possibility of subsequent collapse for three-dimensional ideal flows,

    M. Brachet, M. Meneguzzi, A. Vincent, H. Politano, and P. Sulem, “Numerical evidence of smooth self-similar dynamics and possibility of subsequent collapse for three-dimensional ideal flows,” Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 2845–2854, 1992. 13

    1992

  48. [57]

    Singularities of euler flow? not out of the blue!,

    U. Frisch, T. Matsumoto, and J. Bec, “Singularities of euler flow? not out of the blue!,” Journal of statistical physics, vol. 113, no. 5-6, pp. 761–781, 2003

    2003

  49. [58]

    Interplay between the beale-kato-majda theorem and the analyticity- strip method to investigate numerically the incompressible euler singularity problem,

    M. D. Bustamante and M. Brachet, “Interplay between the beale-kato-majda theorem and the analyticity- strip method to investigate numerically the incompressible euler singularity problem,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 86, p. 066302, Dec 2012

    2012

  50. [59]

    Evolution of complex singularities in kida–pelz and taylor–green inviscid flows,

    C. Cichowlas and M. Brachet, “Evolution of complex singularities in kida–pelz and taylor–green inviscid flows,” Fluid Dynamics Research, vol. 36, no. 4-6, p. 239, 2005

    2005

  51. [60]

    Free-surface cusps associated with flow at low reynolds number,

    J.-T. Jeong and H. Moffatt, “Free-surface cusps associated with flow at low reynolds number,” Journal of fluid mechanics, vol. 241, pp. 1–22, 1992

    1992

  52. [61]

    Viscous free-surface cusps: Local solution,

    J. Eggers, “Viscous free-surface cusps: Local solution,” Physical Review Fluids, vol. 8, no. 12, p. 124001, 2023. Supplementary Information for Potential finite-time singularities of the 3D-axisymmetric ideal, incompressible, magnetohydrodynamical equations Sai Swetha Venkata K...

    2023

  53. [62]

    Berger, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 102, 2637 (1997)

    M. Berger, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 102, 2637 (1997)

    1997

  54. [63]

    T. Hertel, L’algorithme de Cauchy-Lagrange pour les ´ ecoulements axisym´ etriques et incompressibles d’Euler dans un domaine cylindrique born´ e: Exploration num´ erique de la perte de r´ egularit´ e des solutions des ´ equations de l’hydrodynamique par des m´ ethodes semi-La...

    2020

  55. [64]

    Girault and P.-A

    V. Girault and P.-A. Raviart, Finite element approximation of the Navier-Stokes equations , Vol. 749 (Springer Berlin, 1979)

    1979

Pith tools

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