Classical Fluid Analogies for Schr\"odinger-Newton Systems

Aoibhinn Gallagher; Peter Coles

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Classical Fluid Analogies for Schr\"odinger-Newton Systems

T0 review · 4 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 The paper claims that a Schrödinger-Newton system can be represented as a viscous Navier-Stokes fluid only in the semiclassical limit ℏ→0, where the effective viscosity diverges.

desk verdict Modest but honest paper; the new wave equation has a sign error and the central ℏ→0 claim is internally inconsistent—worth a referee but needs corrections. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08583 v2 pith:MAVS4UKH submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Peter Coles , Aoibhinn Gallagher This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords Schrödinger-NewtonsystemSchrödinger-PoissonformalismMadelungtransformationquantumpressureeffectiveviscosityNavier-Stokesanalogypseudo-Reynoldsnumberfuzzydarkmatter

topics Dark Matter

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 asks whether the Schrödinger-Newton (SN) system, and its cosmological Schrödinger-Poisson (SP) limit, can be described as a classical fluid with pressure and viscosity, in the way often assumed for fuzzy dark matter and large-scale structure. It argues that a Navier-Stokes description is possible but only under restrictive conditions: the gradient of the quantum potential must be forced to balance a viscous force term, the effective viscosity becomes spatially varying and of order ℏ, and the description is consistent only in the limit ℏ→0, where viscosity diverges and the flow is nearly incompressible. It then shows that small-amplitude sound waves in such a quantum fluid obey a damped wave equation with a definite attenuation coefficient, and that a pseudo-Reynolds number can be used to scale void-expansion dynamics. A careful reader cares because this sets boundaries on how far wave-mechanical descriptions of dark matter can be interpreted as ordinary fluids.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Madelung transformation ψ=ψ0 exp(S+iϕ), with density ρ=m|ψ|² and the quantum potential U=-(ℏ²/2m)∇²N/N, together with the imposed identity Eq. (34): (1/m)∇U=-(η/ρ)∇²v. This identity is the bridge that lets the quantum momentum equation be read as the irrotational Navier-Stokes equation, and it is what forces the viscosity to be spatially varying and of order ℏ. The same machinery produces the quantum pressure equation of state P=(ν²/2)∇²(√ρ)/√ρ used in the wave-damping calculation.

What would settle it

Run a full numeric Schrödinger-Poisson simulation of a one-dimensional void or halo, extract the Madelung density and velocity fields, and compare the local vector (1/m)∇U with -(η/ρ)∇²v for any reasonable choice of effective η: the ratio would need to be uniform in space for the balance to hold, and a spatially changing ratio would falsify the identification. Alternatively, measure the damping of small-amplitude density waves in the same simulation and check whether the attenuation matches the dispersion relation k=β-iα derived from Eq. (63); no attenuation would also falsify the viscous analogy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Madelung-transformed Schrödinger-Newton equations can be made to match a viscous Navier-Stokes equation only if one imposes the balance condition (1/m)∇U = -(η/ρ)∇²v, together with the hydrostatic condition ∇P/ρ = ∇V/m. This makes the effective viscosity η a spatially dependent quantity of order ℏ, not a constant material parameter. Consequently the fluid analogy is consistent only in the semiclassical limit ℏ→0, in which η→∞ and the wave-function's spatial variations are small, forcing the flow to be almost incompressible and isentropic. The paper also derives an attenuation coefficient for small-amplitude acoustic waves from the resulting viscous wave equation and defends a pseudo-Reynolds number R=ul/ν as a scaling tool for one-dimensional SP void evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the gradient of the quantum potential, a term built from the wave-function's amplitude, exactly balances the viscous force term -η/ρ∇²v; this balance is imposed by hand, and if it does not hold physically the viscosity interpretation collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The effective viscosity of a Schrödinger-Newton fluid must be treated as spatially varying and of order ℏ, so constant-viscosity Navier-Stokes codes cannot faithfully represent the full quantum system.
A consistent Navier-Stokes description exists only in the semiclassical limit ℏ→0, where η→∞ and the flow is nearly incompressible and isentropic; this is the same limit used in analytic adhesion-model treatments.
Small-amplitude acoustic waves in a fuzzy dark matter fluid are attenuated with coefficient α from the dispersion relation k=β-iα, suppressing small-scale structure in a way analogous to free-streaming in hot dark matter.
A pseudo-Reynolds number R=ul/ν can be defined for one-dimensional SP void expansion, with scaling relations among peak velocity, length, and ν that make it a useful dimensionless scaling parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

Going further: because the matching condition is imposed rather than derived, the apparent viscosity of the SP system is better read as a bookkeeping term in the Madelung mapping than as a genuine dissipative transport coefficient; simulations that show viscous damping may be displaying the mapping's structure rather than new physics.
Going further: the same balance condition could be tested in other Madelung-mapped wave equations, such as Bose-Einstein condensates or nonlinear optical systems, where the effective viscosity would predict a measurable relation between amplitude gradients and velocity; a failure there would suggest the SN case is not generic.
Going further: if the pseudo-Reynolds number is a true scaling invariant of void dynamics, it could be used to predict a transition from smooth void expansion to wave-dominated behaviour as the effective ℏ is varied, much as classical Reynolds numbers mark laminar-turbulent transitions.
Going further: because η diverges as ℏ→0, any finite-resolution SP simulation with a non-zero effective Planck constant automatically contains a physically large viscosity, so fuzzy-dark-matter resolution studies should report effective ℏ alongside grid scales.

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 readable, honest paper, but the one new result has a sign error, and the central consistency argument in Section 4 contradicts itself. The correct response is to send it back for corrections, not to reject it.

What is actually new: Section 5 derives a damped wave equation for quantum-pressure fluctuations, Eq. (60), and gives an explicit dispersion relation. The derivation is routine once you accept the Madelung transformation and the equation of state, but I don't think that exact combination appears in earlier work. The paper is also careful to label Eq. (34) as a condition imposed to match the Navier-Stokes form, and it explicitly says a full fluid analogy would need heat transfer and entropy production. That is a fair and useful caveat.

Now the soft spots. The reader's sign analysis is correct: combining Eqs. (54)–(59) yields a plus sign on the (4ν/3)ρ0P_txx term, not the minus in Eq. (60). That flips the sign of the imaginary term in the dispersion relation, so the predicted attenuation in Section 5 comes from their equations only if you make an additional sign convention. Easy to fix, but needed.

More importantly, Section 4 contains an internal contradiction. From Eq. (37), η is of order ℏ, so η→0 as ℏ→0. But the last paragraph of the section says the Navier-Stokes description is consistent only in the limit ℏ→0, in which case η→∞. Both cannot be true unless the denominator in Eq. (37) diverges as ℏ→0, which the paper neither states nor argues. This is load-bearing because the connection to the adhesion model rests on that limit.

The stress-test also notes that Eq. (34) is imposed, not derived, and that in three dimensions it requires ∇U ∥ ∇²v pointwise, which is not generic. I agree. The authors are open about using Fernández de Córdoba et al.'s condition, but they never test whether that alignment holds for realistic wave functions. So the viscosity interpretation remains a formal redefinition rather than an emergent property. That doesn't kill the idea, but it does mean the conceptual claim is weaker than the abstract suggests.

Section 6 is a summary of the authors' earlier paper, and Fig. 1 is not present in the manuscript, so the pseudo-Reynolds scaling is not independently checkable here. That is a minor but annoying omission.

Who should read this: people working on fuzzy dark matter simulations and wave-mechanical structure formation. It clarifies what you can and can't call viscosity in the SP system, which is useful even if the details need work. I would send it to a serious referee, because the issues are fixable and the topic has an audience. I would not cite it in its current form.

Recommendation: engage it in peer review, but require the authors to correct the sign in Eq. (60), resolve the ℏ→0 limit contradiction, and either include Fig. 1 or provide the data behind the scaling claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper examines whether Schrödinger-Newton / Schrödinger-Poisson systems can be interpreted with classical fluid concepts, in particular viscosity. After a standard Madelung transformation, the authors identify the quantum potential with a viscous term in the momentum equation (Eq. 34), leading to a spatially dependent effective viscosity of order ℏ. They then study attenuation of acoustic waves in such a fluid and define a pseudo-Reynolds number for void dynamics, concluding that the fluid analogy is possible only under restrictions.

Significance. If the derivation were sound, this would be a useful clarification of the limits of fluid analogies for fuzzy dark matter, and it would connect the Madelung quantum-pressure term with viscous dissipation. The paper is concise and draws on a relevant literature. However, the central identification is imposed rather than derived, the ℏ→0 limit is internally inconsistent, and the wave equation contains a sign error; the pseudo-Reynolds-number section is not self-contained. The paper therefore does not yet establish its main conclusions.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Eq. (34)] Equation (34) is imposed to force Eq. (32) into the Navier-Stokes form Eq. (19); it is not derived from the Schrödinger equation. For a scalar η to exist in three dimensions, ∇U must be pointwise parallel to ∇²v. With v=(ℏ/m)∇φ this requires ∇(∇²N/N) ∥ ∇(∇²φ), a nongeneric constraint that the manuscript neither states nor verifies. The one-dimensional example sidesteps the issue, but the general claim in Section 4 that the system can be described by a Navier-Stokes equation with scalar viscosity is therefore not established.
[Section 4, Eqs. (35)-(37) and final paragraph] Equation (37) with Eqs. (38)-(40) gives η ∝ ℏ, since A(x) contains ℏ² and B(x) contains ℏ. Hence η→0 as ℏ→0. The final paragraph of Section 4 states the opposite: the Navier-Stokes description 'is only consistent in the limit ℏ → 0 in which case η → ∞'. These statements are mutually contradictory as written. In addition, combining Eq. (34) with the definitions of A and B yields η = -ρ A/B, not η = ρ A/B as printed in Eq. (37); this sign must be resolved before the effective viscosity can be given a physical interpretation.
[Section 5, Eqs. (54)-(60)] Combining Eqs. (54), (56), (58) and (59) gives ν²/4 P_xxxx − ρ0 P_tt + (4ν/3) ρ0 P_txx = 0, not the equation printed with a minus sign before the P_txx term in Eq. (60). The dispersion relation Eq. (63) is therefore derived from a different equation and the acoustic attenuation example must be recomputed. There are also linearization inconsistencies in this section: Eq. (45) gives P ≈ (ν²/4ρ0) δρ_xx to first order, whereas Eq. (46) gives P ≈ (ν²/2ρ0) δρ_xx; Eq. (52) would follow from Eq. (45) only after the denominator ρ0+δρ is replaced by ρ0, and Eq. (55) retains a nonlinear denominator ρ0+2δρ before being rearranged into Eq. (56).
[Section 6] The pseudo-Reynolds-number conclusion is not self-contained. The section summarizes Gallagher & Coles (2022) and refers to Figure 1, but the manuscript provides no quantitative data, no definition of the ν used in the simulations, and no error analysis; the figure appears only as a caption placeholder in the version under review. Since the abstract advertises the pseudo-Reynolds number as one of the paper's conclusions, this section needs to present the supporting evidence or be explicitly demoted to a citation of prior work.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (16)] The second term in the viscous stress tensor should read ∂v_j/∂x_i, not ∂v_j/dx_i, and the index placement should be made consistent.
[Section 4, paragraph before Eq. (33)] The phrase 'discussed in this thesis' should be 'discussed in this paper'.
[Section 4, Eq. (33)] The hydrostatic condition ∇P/ρ = ∇V/m should be motivated explicitly; with the sign convention of Eq. (6) this identification is not the usual hydrostatic equilibrium condition and the reader is left to reconstruct the convention.
[Section 5, Eqs. (43)-(56)] The notation for pressure is inconsistent: Eq. (43) introduces P as a vector, while Eqs. (45)-(60) treat P as a scalar. The mixed notation makes the linearization hard to follow.
[References] The central references Fernández de Córdoba et al. (2016) and Gallagher & Coles (2022) are not summarized beyond the equations borrowed from them; a short statement of their derivations would make the argument more self-contained.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'viscous' description is imposed by Eq. (34), so the central fluid-analogy claim reduces to a definition; the pseudo-Reynolds 'proof of concept' is imported from the authors' own prior paper.

self definitional [Section 4, Eqs. (32)-(36), especially Eq. (34)]
"second we have to identify the term in U with the viscosity term, i.e. 1 m ∇U = − η ρ ∇2v. (34) This condition means that the gradient of the quantum potential must exactly balance the viscosity term in the equations of motion."

Eq. (34) is not derived from the Schrödinger equation; it is imposed so that the Madelung momentum equation (32) matches the Navier-Stokes form (19). Every subsequent 'viscous' property—η being spatially dependent, η being of order ℏ, and the system 'can be described' by a Navier-Stokes equation—is read off from this defining identification rather than derived or tested. The effective viscosity is by construction the quantum-potential gradient divided by ∇²v, making the fluid analogy a formal renaming of the Madelung quantum-pressure term. The paper's own final consistency claim is also internally inconsistent with Eq. (41), where |η| is of order ℏ, so η→0 as ℏ→0, not η→∞.
self citation load bearing [Section 6, after Eq. (64)]
"In summary, Gallagher & Coles (2022)) found that each parameter has the correct relationship to infer a Reynolds number, so scaling solutions of a sort do exist in this system. With a Reynolds number defined for one-dimensional collapse and one-dimensional void expansion, this is sufficient proof of concept for a pseudo-Reynolds number of in this particular Schrödinger-Poisson system."

The conclusion that a pseudo-Reynolds number is meaningful rests entirely on the authors' own previous paper. The only evidence displayed in this manuscript is a bare assertion of proportionality between ν and vpeak plus a figure caption; no data, no derivation, and no external benchmark are supplied. The 'sufficient proof of concept' is therefore imported from a self-citation rather than established here, making the Section 6 scaling claim load-bearing on the authors' prior work.

full rationale

The paper is explicit that Eq. (34) is imposed, citing Fernández de Córdoba et al. (2016), to force the Madelung momentum equation into Navier-Stokes form. Because η is defined by that balance, the central claim that the Schrödinger-Newton system 'can be described' with viscosity is true by construction: any quantum-potential gradient can be relabeled as a viscous term, and the reported spatial dependence and order-ℏ scaling of η are consequences of the definition, not independent predictions. This is a genuine self-definitional step, not merely a self-citation. The pseudo-Reynolds-number section then appeals to Gallagher & Coles (2022) for its proof of concept, with the present paper's Figure 1 not providing reproducible evidence; that is load-bearing self-citation. The external references (Joseph 2006; Fernández de Córdoba et al. 2016) supply background but do not remove the definitional character of Eq. (34), and the stated ℏ→0, η→∞ consistency condition conflicts with the paper's own η∼ℏ estimate. I therefore score 6: the main fluid-analogy result partially reduces to a definition, and the Reynolds-number claim is supported by self-citation rather than by independent evidence presented here.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the Madelung transformation, the irrotational flow assumption, and the ad hoc identification of the quantum potential with a viscous force. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

ν (viscosity parameter)
Introduced in Section 3 as an adjustable parameter controlling the frequency of oscillatory solutions; later identified as an effective kinematic viscosity. Not fitted to data in this paper, but arbitrary.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The velocity field is irrotational (potential flow)
Stated in Section 3: 'our representation requires a potential flow for which the vorticity is zero by definition.' This limits the fluid analogy to vorticity-free flows.
ad hoc to paper The quantum potential gradient must equal the viscous term (Eq. 34)
Imposed to make Eq. (32) compatible with Eq. (19), following Fernández de Córdoba et al. (2016). This is the key condition for interpreting ν as viscosity.
domain assumption Hydrostatic pressure condition (Eq. 33): ∇P/ρ = ∇V/m
Needed to match Navier-Stokes; implies pressure is hydrostatic and there is no dynamic pressure. Invoked in Section 4.
domain assumption Small-amplitude (linear) waves
Assumed in Section 5: |δρ| ≪ ρ0, used to linearize continuity, momentum and pressure equations.
domain assumption The Schrödinger equation with |ψ|² as physical density
Standard SP description, stated in Section 3, distinguishes from quantum mechanics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical Fluid Analogies for Schr\"odinger-Newton Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAVS4UKH

@misc{pith2026250708583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical Fluid Analogies for Schr\"odinger-Newton Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAVS4UKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08583}
}

read the original abstract

The Schr\"odinger-Poisson formalism has found a number of applications in cosmology, particularly in describing the growth by gravitational instability of large-scale structure in a universe dominated by ultra-light scalar particles. Here we investigate the extent to which the behaviour of this and the more general case of a Schr\"odinger-Newton system, can be described in terms of classical fluid concepts such as viscosity and pressure. We also explore whether such systems can be described by a pseudo-Reynolds number as for classical viscous fluids. The conclusion we reach is that this is indeed possible, but with important restrictions to ensure physical consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08583 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** — Peak velocity of a one dimensional SP void plotted against viscosity parameter ν calculated vpeak for varying l values and at fixed vpeak between ν and l. In summary, Gallagher & Coles (2022)) found that each parameter has the correct relationship to infer a Reynolds number, so scaling solutions of a sort do exist in this system. With a Reynolds number defined for one-dimensional collapse and one-dimensional void … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

N., Coles P., 2022, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.0902.0605 , 5

Brook M. N., Coles P., 2022, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.0902.0605 , 5

arXiv 2022
[2]

Buchert T., Dom \' nguez A., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...335..395B 335, 395

work page 1998
[3]

Coles P., 2002a, The Wave Mechanics of Large-scale Structure ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209576 )

arXiv
[4]

Coles P., 2002b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05096.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.330..421C 330, 421

arXiv 2002
[5]

Coles P., Spencer K., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06529.x , 342, 176–184

arXiv 2003
[6]

Dentler M., Marsh D. J. E., Hložek R., Laguë A., Rogers K. K., Grin D., 2021, Fuzzy Dark Matter and the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Data, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2111.01199 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01199

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.01199 2021
[7]

M., Vázquez Molina J., 2016, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e18010034 , 18

Fernández de Córdoba P., Isidro J. M., Vázquez Molina J., 2016, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e18010034 , 18

work page doi:10.3390/e18010034 2016
[8]

Gallagher A., Coles P., 2022, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2208.13851 , 5

arXiv 2022

Show all 26 references

[9]

arXiv:2206.11918

Gough A., Uhlemann C., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220611918G p. arXiv:2206.11918

2022
[10]

N., Saichev A

Gurbatov S. N., Saichev A. I., Shandarin S. F., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/236.2.385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.236..385G 236, 385

1989 doi
[11]

Hui L., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..247H 59, 247

2021 doi
[12]

N., Hobson M

Johnston R., Lasenby A. N., Hobson M. P., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16052.x , 402, 2491

2010
[13]

Jones B. J. T., 1999, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02592.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.307..376J 307, 376

1999
[14]

D., 2006, @doi [International Journal of Multiphase Flow] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2005.09.004 , 32, 285

Joseph D. D., 2006, @doi [International Journal of Multiphase Flow] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2005.09.004 , 32, 285

2006 doi
[15]

Reynolds O., 1883, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series I, 174, 935
[16]

L., Peixoto de Faria J

Ribeiro A. L., Peixoto de Faria J. G., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rev. D.] 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.067302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvD..71f7302R 71, 067302

2005 doi
[17]

C., Easther R., 2020, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/physrevd.102.083518 , 102

Schwabe B., Gosenca M., Behrens C., Niemeyer J. C., Easther R., 2020, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/physrevd.102.083518 , 102

2020 doi
[18]

F., Zeldovich Y

Shandarin S. F., Zeldovich Y. B., 1989, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.61.185 , 61:2

1989 doi
[19]

J., Coles P., 2006a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/12/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JCAP...12..012S 2006, 012

Short C. J., Coles P., 2006a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/12/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JCAP...12..012S 2006, 012

2006 doi
[20]

J., Coles P., 2006b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/12/016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JCAP...12..016S 2006, 016

Short C. J., Coles P., 2006b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/12/016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JCAP...12..016S 2006, 016

2006 doi
[21]

aerung der turbulenten Fl\

Sommerfeld A., 1908, Ein Beitrag zur hydrodynamischen Erkl\"aerung der turbulenten Fl\"ussigkeitsbeweg\"ungen (A Contribution to Hydrodynamics Explanation of Turbulent Fluid Motions), https://web.archive.org/web/20161115133937/http://www.mathunion.org/ICM/ICM1908.3/Main/icm190...

1908
[22]

Stokes G., 1849, Transactions of the Cambridge Phiosophical Society, 8, 287
[23]

G., 1851, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosphical Society, 9, 8

Stokes G. G., 1851, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosphical Society, 9, 8
[24]

Szapudi I., Kaiser N., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/368013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...583L...1S 583, L1

2003 doi
[25]

M., Kaiser N., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...416L..71W 416, L71

Widrow L. M., Kaiser N., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...416L..71W 416, L71

1993 doi
[26]

B., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970A&A.....5...84Z 500, 13

Zel'Dovich Y. B., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970A&A.....5...84Z 500, 13

1970

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

N., Coles P., 2022, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.0902.0605 , 5

Brook M. N., Coles P., 2022, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.0902.0605 , 5

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Buchert T., Dom \' nguez A., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...335..395B 335, 395

work page 1998

[3] [3]

Coles P., 2002a, The Wave Mechanics of Large-scale Structure ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209576 )

arXiv

[4] [4]

Coles P., 2002b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05096.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.330..421C 330, 421

arXiv 2002

[5] [5]

Coles P., Spencer K., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06529.x , 342, 176–184

arXiv 2003

[6] [6]

Dentler M., Marsh D. J. E., Hložek R., Laguë A., Rogers K. K., Grin D., 2021, Fuzzy Dark Matter and the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Data, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2111.01199 , https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01199

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.01199 2021

[7] [7]

M., Vázquez Molina J., 2016, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e18010034 , 18

Fernández de Córdoba P., Isidro J. M., Vázquez Molina J., 2016, @doi [Entropy] 10.3390/e18010034 , 18

work page doi:10.3390/e18010034 2016

[8] [8]

Gallagher A., Coles P., 2022, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2208.13851 , 5

arXiv 2022