Timeline for How were the Navier-Stokes equations found in the first place if we can't solve them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 18, 2017 at 15:16 | comment | added | Vendetta | I also don't understand the premise of the question. Equations just exist independent from our ability to solve them. I'd reformulate the question completely to something like "How were the equations discovered in the first place? Why can't we solve them, even after such a long time of their discovery and after the invention of computers?". Or something with such spirit. | |
| Oct 16, 2017 at 8:19 | comment | added | David Richerby | I don't understand the premise of the question. Any time you solve an equation, you must already have the equation in your hand. Every equation that is "discovered" is necessarily discovered before its solution. (At least, unless you start at "$x=4$" and start to work backwards to, e.g., $x^2-8x+16=0$ and so on.) It's always easier to come up with problems than to solve them. | |
| Oct 15, 2017 at 15:43 | history | edited | Disgusting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
unedited an edit I disagreed with, added info on what level of study this occured at
|
| S Oct 15, 2017 at 11:01 | history | edited | AccidentalFourierTransform | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added the important bit that changes the whole tone of the question to the title
|
| S Oct 15, 2017 at 11:01 | history | suggested | Ooker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added the important bit that changes the whole tone of the question to the title
|
| Oct 15, 2017 at 10:53 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 15, 2017 at 11:01 | |||||
| Oct 15, 2017 at 9:59 | vote | accept | Disgusting | ||
| Oct 15, 2017 at 6:10 | history | protected | Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Oct 15, 2017 at 5:15 | comment | added | jamesqf | Being able to express something as a general equation (or system of equations) doesn't say anything about the ease of solving that equation. For instance, Newton's law of gravity is pretty simple, but there's still no general solution to the 3 body problem. | |
| Oct 15, 2017 at 3:14 | answer | added | Selene Routley | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 15, 2017 at 2:58 | answer | added | CR Drost | timeline score: 46 | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 23:47 | answer | added | AccidentalTaylorExpansion | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 20:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/919304892556218369 | ||
| Oct 14, 2017 at 16:25 | comment | added | Vladimir F Героям слава | @Ruslan Sure, I thought that it is so obvious in the term numerical solution that I thought that can be kept implicit, but... I missed the word additional when typing. The point is there are no additional approximations put into the equations about some unresolved scales in DNS. | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 15:11 | comment | added | Ruslan | @VladimirF without approximations? Numerics are approximations themselves, by definition — regardless of how fine the grid is. | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 15:01 | comment | added | Vladimir F Героям слава | They are very far from being minimally understood! The (both mathematical and physical) literature is very rich and treats many subjects of NS. Numerics can then solve DNS (without approximations) in some very intersting turbulent cases with billions of grid points. | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 12:51 | answer | added | tpg2114 | timeline score: 20 | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 12:50 | answer | added | Chet Miller | timeline score: 12 | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 12:27 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Navier-Stokes equations are just a transcription of Newton's 2nd law to continuum mechanics. | |
| Oct 14, 2017 at 12:22 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 65 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Oct 14, 2017 at 12:02 | history | asked | Disgusting | CC BY-SA 3.0 |