Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Density evolution at fluid-fluid interfaces: A generalized Gibbs-Duhem theory

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation that includes kinetic energy, shows it is equivalent to the momentum evolution equation, and uses it to obtain a density evolution equation for fluid–fluid interfaces.

desk verdict The paper's core derivation is invalid—the Euler-theorem step treats velocity as an extensive variable and is off by a factor of two—so the generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation, the density evolution equation, and the 'recoveries' all rest on a broken foundation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11988 v2 pith:FUOLSXDM submitted 2026-07-13 cond-mat.stat-mech physics.chem-phphysics.class-phphysics.flu-dyn

Fei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.chem-phphysics.class-phphysics.flu-dyn MSC 80A1776A0282B26 PACS 05.70.-a47.10.-g
keywords Gibbs–Duhemrelationkineticenergydensityevolutionfluid–fluidinterfacenonequilibriumthermodynamicsspeedofsoundBernoulliequationidealgasstate
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 aims to close the gap between Gibbsian thermodynamics, which describes quasistatic equilibrium, and Newtonian fluid mechanics. It does so by adding a kinetic-energy term to the classical Gibbs–Duhem relation, so that pressure, chemical potentials, temperature, and velocity appear in one differential identity. From that identity the author derives a density evolution equation that explicitly allows dρ/dt≠0 at interfaces, replacing the usual incompressibility assumption. The payoff, if correct, is a single thermodynamic framework that also produces Newton's law, sound speed, Bernoulli's equation, Stokes flow, and the ideal-gas equation of state in appropriate limits. A careful reader would care because the equation is offered as a solution to the long-standing high-density-ratio problem at water-gas interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the enlarged free-energy element e = f(τ,φ,∇φ) + ρu·u, with the velocity u promoted to an extensive variable. Euler's theorem for homogeneous functions is applied to this element to obtain a scaling identity that forces the modified Gibbs–Duhem relation. The conjugate potentials are µ_τ = ∂e/∂τ, µ_i = ∂e/∂φ_i − ∇·∂e/∂∇φ_i, and µ_u = ∂e/∂u = ρu. The same machinery, combined with dissipation principles for heat, composition, and velocity entropies, yields the diffusion equations dτ/dt, dφ_i/dt, du/dt and, by subtraction, the density evolution equation.

What would settle it

Look at a single material volume element in uniform, steady flow and evaluate the scaling identity e(βδV, βδV*) = β e(δV, δV*). For a finite volume element, the kinetic term ρu² δV scales with β through δV alone, while u remains a field value; any numerical or conceptual check that shows the identity is violated for nonzero u would falsify the generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation. A more direct experiment: measure the density profile and velocity profile across a stationary water-gas interface and check whether u dρ/dt = 0 requires the gradient balance stated in the paper's density evolution equat

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the classical Gibbs–Duhem relation dp + Σφ_i dµ_i + τ dµ_τ = 0 can be extended to dp + Σφ_i dµ_i + u·dµ_u + τ dµ_τ = 0, with the velocity potential defined as µ_u = ρu. This generalized identity is said to be mathematically equivalent to the momentum evolution equation, so that thermodynamics and mechanics describe the same content. Subtracting the velocity-dissipation equation from the momentum equation yields the proposed density evolution equation u dρ/dt = −∇p − Σφ_i∇µ_i − τ∇µ_τ − ρ∇·[D_u(∇µ_u + ∇µ_u^T)], which the conclusion states solves the classic high density ratio problem at water-gas interfaces. The derivation relies on treating the free-energy element e

Load-bearing premise

The derivation treats the velocity field u as an extensive thermodynamic variable that scales with system size, so that the kinetic term ρu·u is homogeneous of degree one in the extensive variables; if this homogeneity fails, the modified Gibbs–Duhem relation and the density evolution equation do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation holds, pressure, chemical potential, temperature, and velocity become linked in a single identity, so thermodynamic and mechanical descriptions of a flowing fluid are equivalent.
  • The density evolution equation supplies an explicit dρ/dt≠0 at interfaces, removing the incompressibility condition as the default closure for diffuse-interface models.
  • In the isentropic limit the equation reduces to u dρ/dt = −∇p, reproducing the speed of sound; with ρu² it also yields Bernoulli's law.
  • In the absence of macroscopic flow, interpreting u as mean thermal velocity recovers the ideal-gas equation of state, and in the incompressible viscous limit the framework reproduces Stokes flow.
  • If the framework is correct, it provides a direct entropic origin for acceleration, with viscous dissipation entering through the velocity entropy rather than through an explicit mechanical force.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the density evolution equation is derived from homogeneity in the velocity variable, one testable consequence is that any simulation using it must preserve the scaling identity; a finite-volume numerical check of Eq. (33) would expose whether the kinetic term really scales as an extensive variable.
  • The paper's split of entropy into mixing, thermal, and velocity parts suggests a route to derive cross-diffusion couplings (thermophoresis, diffusio-osmosis) by including cross terms in the dissipation matrix; the author does not work these out.
  • If the generalized relation holds at interfaces, it implies that the pressure jump across a fluid interface is not purely Laplace-like but contains contributions from velocity-potential gradients; measuring density and velocity profiles across a water-gas interface could detect such a contribution.
  • The claimed equivalence between the generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation and momentum evolution suggests a possible reformulation of multiphase solvers that evolve thermodynamic potentials rather than momentum; this is not stated in the paper.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation that incorporates a kinetic-energy term, Eq. (53), and uses it to derive a density-evolution equation purported to describe fluid–fluid interfaces. The central mathematical step is an application of Euler's theorem to a free-energy element containing the kinetic term ρu·u, leading to a modified Gibbs–Duhem relation dp + Σφ_i dμ_i + u·dμ_u + τdμ_τ = 0. The authors then derive a momentum-evolution equation and a density-evolution equation, and claim to recover the speed of sound, Bernoulli's law, the ideal-gas equation of state, and Stokes flow as limiting cases. The manuscript also asserts that the generalized Gibbs–Duhem relation is 'mathematically equivalent' to the momentum equation and that the new density equation 'solves the classic high density ratio problem' at water–gas interfaces.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, the paper would offer a novel unification of thermodynamics and mechanics at interfaces, with potential value for diffuse-interface modeling of high-density-ratio flows. However, the manuscript provides no machine-checked proofs, no numerical demonstrations, and no independent validation beyond restating standard limiting cases. The claimed recoveries of Bernoulli's law, the ideal-gas EOS, and Stokes flow are either circular or algebraically incorrect. The central Euler-theorem step, which is load-bearing for the entire framework, is mathematically invalid as written. The paper's contribution is therefore not established, and its central claims cannot be accepted in the present form.

major comments (6)
  1. [§III, Eq. (29) and Eq. (32)–(33)] The free-energy density is e = f + ρu·u. The potential conjugate to u is therefore μu = ∂e/∂u = 2ρu, not ρu as stated in Eq. (29). Moreover, Euler's theorem is applied to the element e = μττδV + μiφiδV + ρu·uδV treating u as an extensive variable; this is not a valid homogeneous-function argument because u is a field and the kinetic term is quadratic in u. The factor-of-2 error propagates through the modified Gibbs–Duhem relation Eq. (30)/(53) into every subsequent equation, including the momentum balance (43) and the density-evolution equation, invalidating the central claim.
  2. [§IV.C, density-evolution equation] The derivation of the density-evolution equation from 'Eq. (43) minus Eq. (36)' is algebraically inconsistent. With Eq. (43) written as −∇p + Σφ_i∇μ_i + τ∇μ_τ + d(ρu)/dt = 0 and Eq. (36) as du/dt = ∇·[D_u(∇μu+∇μu^T)], subtracting yields u dρ/dt = ∇p − Σφ_i∇μ_i − τ∇μ_τ − ρ∇·[D_u(...)], i.e., the pressure term has the sign opposite to that displayed in the manuscript. This sign discrepancy affects all subsequent limiting cases, including Eq. (45) and the speed-of-sound relation.
  3. [§IV.C, Bernoulli's law, Eq. (47)] The recovery of Bernoulli's law uses the 'isentropic condition ρu·du = 0', which is not justified: isentropic flow does not imply orthogonality of velocity and its differential. In addition, the result d(p+ρu²)=0 omits the factor 1/2; the standard Bernoulli equation is d(p + (1/2)ρu²)=0 for steady, inviscid, barotropic flow. The derivation therefore does not recover Bernoulli's law as claimed.
  4. [§IV.C, ideal-gas EOS, Eqs. (48)–(50)] The validation of the ideal-gas EOS begins by assuming ρu² = R_gτ/v_m in Eq. (48), which already encodes the ideal-gas relation (in kinetic theory the coefficient is 1/3, not unity, for a monatomic gas). The subsequent derivation produces R_gτ(lnρ−lnρ0)=(p0−p)v_m, Eq. (50), which is not the ideal-gas EOS p = R_gτ/v_m. Calling the result 'the EOS of ideal gas with a factor lnρ' does not remove the discrepancy. This validation is both circular and incorrect.
  5. [§IV.D, Stokes flow, Eqs. (51)–(52)] The 'recovery' of Stokes flow inputs the velocity diffusion equation du/dt = (η/ρ)∇²u via Eq. (36) with D_u = η/ρ². This is the Newtonian constitutive relation, so deriving −∇P + η∇²u = 0 (Eq. 52) from it is circular. The step from Eq. (51) to Eq. (52) also requires implicit identification of dp/dx with ∇P and ρu·du/dx with ρ du/dt; these identifications are not stated or justified.
  6. [§IV.B, Eqs. (41)–(43)] The generalization from 1D, Eq. (42), to n dimensions, Eq. (43), is asserted rather than derived. The phrase 'by appropriately choosing dx_k so that dr/dx_k=1' is not a valid mathematical operation: dr/dx_k is the k-th unit basis vector, and replacing a directional derivative with the full gradient requires additional assumptions that are not stated. This is load-bearing because the momentum-evolution equation is used for all subsequent conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eq. (12)] Typo: the right-hand side reads Δv'_w + Δv'_w + v_e; the second term should be Δv'_a.
  2. [Appendix A] 'boundray' should be 'boundary'.
  3. [References] Reference [10] and reference [24] are identical duplicate entries.
  4. [§IV.A, Eq. (37) text] The text says 'D1 depicts the mobility'; this should refer to D_u.
  5. [§V, Conclusion] The claim that the result 'solves the classic high density ratio problem' is not supported by any numerical simulation or quantitative demonstration in the manuscript; it should be framed as a conjecture or future work.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Claimed limiting-case validations of the density evolution equation reduce to definitions, inserted inputs, and imposed conditions; the central derivation has independent content, but the validation chain is partially circular.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.C, Eqs. (45)-(46)]
    "Under isentropic condition, the density evolution equation reduces to u dρ/dt = −∇p. (45) In 1D, we replicate the classic definition of sound speed u = sqrt(dP/dρ). (46)"

    The relation c^2 = dp/dρ is the thermodynamic definition of the sound speed. Replacing c by u in the reduced density-evolution equation and calling it a 'recovery' simply reinstates the definition; no independent acoustic wave dynamics are derived.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C, Eqs. (48)-(50)]
    "The corresponding kinetic energy density is then given by ρu2 = Rgτ/vm, (48) ... Integrating ... we obtain Rgτ(lnρ−lnρ0) = (p0−p)vm, (50) which is the EOS of ideal gas with a factor, lnρ."

    Eq. (48) inserts the ideal-gas thermal pressure Rgτ/vm as the kinetic energy density, which is already the target EOS in the form ρu^2=p. The integration then outputs a log-modified relation and labels it an ideal-gas EOS; the validation is the input relation wearing the name of a prediction.

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.D, Eqs. (36)-(37) and Eq. (52)]
    "adopting the velocity dissipation equation, du/dt=Du∇²u=(η/ρ)∇²u [Eq. (36)], we recover Stokes’s formulation for fluid dynamics: −∇P+η∇²u=0. (52)"

    Eq. (37) sets Du=η/ρ², so Eq. (36) already contains the Stokes viscous operator (η/ρ)∇²u. Substituting this chosen mobility back into the reduced Gibbs-Duhem expression simply reads off the Stokes equation that was put into the model; it is not an independent recovery.

  2. other [Section IV.C, Eq. (47)]
    "By using the relation d(ρu2)=u2dρ+2ρu·du and the isentropic condition ρu·du=0, Eq. (45) is further simplified as d(p+ρu2)=0. This result is nothing but Bernoulli’s equation."

    The standard Bernoulli derivation obtains −ρu·du=dp as the mechanical-work contribution. Here ρu·du is imposed to vanish, deleting exactly that contribution, and the remaining d(p+ρu²)=0 is labeled Bernoulli even though the classical statement is d(p+½ρu²)=0. The claimed recovery is forced by the imposed condition rather than derived.

full rationale

The central construction—generalized Gibbs-Duhem from Euler's theorem, followed by a density-evolution equation formed by combining the momentum evolution and velocity-dissipation equations—is not itself a circular argument: it is a formal derivation from stated assumptions. The circularity appears in the validation section. The sound-speed 'recovery' is the definition of sound speed rewritten with u; the ideal-gas 'recovery' inserts ρu²=Rgτ/vm, which is already the ideal-gas pressure, and then produces a log-containing expression that is not the ideal-gas EOS; and the Stokes 'recovery' uses Du=η/ρ², so the viscous term is placed in Eq. (36) by construction and then extracted as Eq. (52). The Bernoulli check similarly imposes ρu·du=0, eliminating the term that standard Bernoulli derives, and even then gives p+ρu² rather than p+½ρu². These are not independent benchmarks. Separately, there is a mathematical consistency issue in the Euler step: for e=f+ρu·u, Eq. (29) states μu=∂e/∂u=ρu, whereas the actual derivative would be 2ρu; I regard that as a correctness risk rather than a circularity step. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: the cited previous work supports modeling choices but is not what makes the limiting-case results appear circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on a set of assumed gradient-flow and free-energy structures. Most importantly, the validation of the ideal-gas EOS presupposes the ideal-gas law via Eq. (48), and the new velocity-entropy entity is not independently evidenced.

free parameters (3)
  • D_u (velocity diffusivity)
    Introduced in Eq. (36) with D_u = η/ρ² (Eq. 37). The form of the velocity-diffusion term is imposed, not derived, and is needed to form the density evolution equation by subtraction.
  • D_τ, D_φi (heat and mass mobilities)
    Introduced in Eqs. (34)-(35); their functional forms and values are unspecified. They are needed for the gradient-flow dynamics but are not used in the limiting-case validations.
  • p_ref
    Arbitrary integration constant in Eq. (31) for the pressure expression; its value does not affect the subsequent differential equations but is part of the pressure definition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Free energy functional has the form E = ∫_V (f(τ,φ,∇φ) + ρu·u) dV + ∫_V p dV, with p a Lagrange multiplier enforcing volume conservation (Eq. 24).
    The entire variational framework rests on this assumed Ansatz. Refs. 11,12 are cited for p as pressure, but the kinetic-energy term ρu·u is chosen by hand and is not derived.
  • domain assumption The entropy splits into s = s_φ + s_τ + s_u (Eq. 25), with each component producing a separate diffusion equation.
    The velocity entropy s_u is a new postulated entity; the splitting is not derived and is used to justify the gradient-flow equations (34)-(36).
  • standard math Euler's theorem for homogeneous functions applies to e(βδV, βδV*_i) with u treated as an extensive variable (Eqs. 32-33).
    This is the standard Gibbs–Duhem derivation, but its applicability to the kinetic term is unproven; u is a velocity field, not an extensive thermodynamic variable.
  • domain assumption The dissipation principle yields dφ_i/dt = ∇·D_φi ∇µ_i, dτ/dt = ∇·D_τ ∇µ_τ, du/dt = ∇·D_u(∇µ_u+∇µ_u^T) (Eqs. 34-36).
    These gradient-flow equations are assumed without derivation and are used to subtract and form the density evolution equation.
  • domain assumption The velocity u includes the mean thermal velocity; at mesoscopic scale, ρu² = R_g τ / v_m (Eq. 48).
    This relation is essentially the ideal-gas law for thermal motion. It is inserted to "validate" the density evolution equation, making the EOS recovery circular.
invented entities (1)
  • velocity entropy s_u
    purpose: To model velocity diffusion and claim an entropic origin of acceleration (Eqs. 36-40, Appendix B).
    No independent evidence is provided; the paper claims Maxwell equations from this concept only in a self-cited preprint (Ref. 23).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density evolution at fluid-fluid interfaces: A generalized Gibbs-Duhem theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUOLSXDM

@misc{pith2026260711988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density evolution at fluid-fluid interfaces: A generalized Gibbs-Duhem theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUOLSXDM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11988}
}
read the original abstract

The classical Gibbs-Duhem relation applies to quasi-static processes and neglects kinetic effects, leaving a fundamental gap between Gibbs thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics. Here, we derive a generalized Gibbs-Duhem framework that incorporates kinetic contributions, thereby establishing a unified connection between classical thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics. Based on this framework, we propose an alternative evolution equation governing density dynamics at fluid-fluid interfaces. In appropriate limiting cases, the resulting density evolution equation naturally recovers the definition of the speed of sound, Bernoulli's law, and the van der Waals equation of state (EOS).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11988 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) The transport of the volume element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Fluid Mechanics: Landau and Lifshitz: Course of Theoretical Physics, Volume 6 , volume 6

    Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshitz. Fluid Mechanics: Landau and Lifshitz: Course of Theoretical Physics, Volume 6 , volume 6. Elsevier, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Thermodynamics of a compressible lattice gas crystal: Generalized gibbs--duhem equation and adsorption

    Michiel Sprik. Thermodynamics of a compressible lattice gas crystal: Generalized gibbs--duhem equation and adsorption. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 163(11), 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    A diffuse-interface method for simulating two-phase flows of complex fluids

    Pengtao Yue, James J Feng, Chun Liu, and Jie Shen. A diffuse-interface method for simulating two-phase flows of complex fluids. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 515:293--317, 2004

    2004

  4. [4]

    Numerical modeling of multiphase flows in microfluidics and micro process engineering: a review of methods and applications

    Martin W \"o rner. Numerical modeling of multiphase flows in microfluidics and micro process engineering: a review of methods and applications. Microfluidics and nanofluidics , 12(6):841--886, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    Evolution dynamics of thin liquid structures investigated using a phase-field model

    Yanchen Wu, Fei Wang, Sai Zheng, and Britta Nestler. Evolution dynamics of thin liquid structures investigated using a phase-field model. Soft Matter , 20(7):1523--1542, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Density and excess volume of the liquid ti--v system measured in electromagnetic levitation

    Benedikt Reiplinger and J \"u rgen Brillo. Density and excess volume of the liquid ti--v system measured in electromagnetic levitation. Journal of Materials Science , 57(16):7954--7964, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Vincent Caqueret, Kaoutar Berkalou, Jean-Louis Havet, Marie Debacq, and St \'e phane Vitu. Density, excess molar volume and vapor--liquid equilibrium measurements at 101.3 kpa for binary mixtures containing ethyl acetate and a branched alkane: Experimental data and modeling. Liquids , 3(2):187--202, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Wetting and contact-angle hysteresis: Density asymmetry and van der waals force

    Fei Wang and Britta Nestler. Wetting and contact-angle hysteresis: Density asymmetry and van der waals force. Physical Review Letters , 132(12):126202, 2024

    2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Wetting phenomena: Line tension and gravitational effect

    Fei Wang, Haodong Zhang, and Britta Nestler. Wetting phenomena: Line tension and gravitational effect. Physical Review Letters , 133(24):246201, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    The temperature can also be considered as the Lagrange multiplier for the system entropy, _V s d V

  3. [11]

    Young's law with gravity

    EM Blokhuis, Y Shilkrot, and B Widom. Young's law with gravity. Molecular Physics , 86(4):891--899, 1995

    1995

  4. [12]

    Conflicts between gibbsian thermodynamics and recent treatments of interfacial energies in solid-liquid-vapor

    Rulon E Johnson Jr. Conflicts between gibbsian thermodynamics and recent treatments of interfacial energies in solid-liquid-vapor. The Journal of Physical Chemistry , 63(10):1655--1658, 1959

    1959

  5. [13]

    the thermodynamik theory of capillarity under the hypothesis of a continuous variation of density

    John S Rowlinson. Translation of jd van der waals'“the thermodynamik theory of capillarity under the hypothesis of a continuous variation of density”. Journal of Statistical Physics , 20:197--200, 1979

    1979

  6. [14]

    Free energy of a nonuniform system

    John W Cahn and John E Hilliard. Free energy of a nonuniform system. i. interfacial free energy. The Journal of chemical physics , 28(2):258--267, 1958

    1958

  7. [15]

    Chemo-elasto-electro free energy of non-uniform system in the diffuse interface context

    Yuhan Cai, Fei Wang, Haodong Zhang, and Britta Nestler. Chemo-elasto-electro free energy of non-uniform system in the diffuse interface context. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 36(49):495702, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    A thermodynamically consistent diffuse interface model for the wetting phenomenon of miscible and immiscible ternary fluids

    Fei Wang, Haodong Zhang, Yanchen Wu, and Britta Nestler. A thermodynamically consistent diffuse interface model for the wetting phenomenon of miscible and immiscible ternary fluids. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 970:A17, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Multi-component electro-hydro-thermodynamic model with phase-field method

    Haodong Zhang, Fei Wang, and Britta Nestler. Multi-component electro-hydro-thermodynamic model with phase-field method. i. dielectric. Journal of Computational Physics , page 112907, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Viscoelastic phase separation

    Hajime Tanaka. Viscoelastic phase separation. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , 12(15):R207, 2000

    2000

  11. [19]

    On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton

    Erik Verlinde. On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2011(4):1--27, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Gravity from entropy

    Ginestra Bianconi. Gravity from entropy. Physical Review D , 111(6):066001, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Jeans instability, jeans entropy, and the entropy origin of gravity

    Edward Bormashenko. Jeans instability, jeans entropy, and the entropy origin of gravity. World J. Phys. , 1(02):79--86, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Lattice-boltzmann simulations of droplet evaporation

    Rodrigo Ledesma-Aguilar, Dominic Vella, and Julia M Yeomans. Lattice-boltzmann simulations of droplet evaporation. Soft Matter , 10(41):8267--8275, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Thermodynamic Coupling of Mass and Electromagnetic Fields: Entropic Origin of Parity Asymmetry and the Meissner Effect

    Fei Wang. Thermodynamic Coupling of Mass and Electromagnetic Fields: Entropic Origin of Parity Asymmetry and the Meissner Effect. arXiv:2411.16798

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.