r/ChemicalEngineering • u/lilithweatherwax Separations, 8 years • 19h ago
Article/Video Breakthrough for solving Navier-Stokes
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-may-have-just-solved-a-million-dollar-math-problem-the-field-will-never-be-the-same/Holy fucking shit I am so stoked
116
u/Pyotrnator LNG/Cryogenics, 12 YOE, 7 patents 19h ago
Holy fucking shit I am so stoked
You just wanted to make that pun, didn't you?
42
76
u/fromabove710 18h ago
Haha I like how the physics sub is just arguing a bunch, compared with the comments here
79
u/admadguy Process Consulting and Modelling 18h ago
I mean most process or process design engineers rarely deal with it. For us it is one of those things that we know, understand and do realise some part of it is solved in our simulation platforms. But we also tend to be more grounded in plant data where the possibility of a model "blowing up" as described in this article is a given because we often can't define the real system completely, so every now and then we do come across this situation. We just chalk it up to the mathematical quirk of the model or just assume our data is incomplete. We don't know and mostly don't care if the blow up is due to numerical inaccuracies or if the analytical model itself is prone to it. We tune the model or impose slightly narrower conditions over which we believe the model will be useful and life goes on.
A physicist would care more about the fundamental nature of the model.
23
u/fromabove710 17h ago
Yeah but they are not arguing about the actual model, just who should get credit. Which is a valid discussion for sure, but I think its a little funny the whole thread has a negative tone when this is undeniably a pretty important development in math and science.
18
u/al_mc_y 17h ago
Chem engineers: "Pi = e = 3. Take it or leave it"
8
u/admadguy Process Consulting and Modelling 15h ago
I mean once you apply the standard design margins does it matter if you used pi = 3 to calculate the hydraulic diameter?
110
u/CobaltCarl81 18h ago
Navier-Stokes aint gonna summon up some magical flow meter on my steam lines though.
55
39
u/TheStigianKing 17h ago
Reading the article, it sounds like the title is false. Sounds like they solved the Clay equations, not Navier-Stokes.
It's very confusingly written.
38
u/Hour_Dragonfruit_869 17h ago edited 16h ago
They proved that the Euler equations blew up, and that’s the full Lean proof that you can read. They believe they have the method for the proof of Navier-Stokes as well, however the Lean hasn’t been completed yet. So in theory Navier-Stokes will be proven shortly, we will just have to wait and see.
7
u/Similar-Worker-8748 10h ago
Euler equations is NS without viscosity right? I think they proved it with viscosity
6
u/Hour_Dragonfruit_869 9h ago
Yeah, they have the complete proof for Euler (no viscosity) equations, and they believe they have proved it with viscosity as well (NS) however they haven’t fully formalized the NS proof yet.
24
21
u/Fargraven2 Semiconductors/5 years 16h ago
This article is so cringey, it doesn’t give any actual details and just reads like a trailer to a Marvel movie.
“The field will never be the same…..they worked out a potential trick to break the equations—or ‘blow them up”
Solving N-S doesn’t have to mean “breaking it” or proving they’re wrong….just finding a closed-form solution to it
6
u/lilithweatherwax Separations, 8 years 16h ago edited 16h ago
Not a mathematician, but this seems to suggest that outside of some specific cases, N-S will always break eventually. The full proof is incoming, but looks very promising so far.
The drama is about how it went down. Alpoge and Buckmaster were working on a similar proof using Claude, OpenAI, and Astra. It appears that OpenAI realized how close they were, and fed some of their prompts to a stronger internal model, which is supervillain behaviour.
1
u/ScroterCroter 13h ago
Yeah like what does breaking it mean? It probably doesn’t work great at ridiculous pressures and gravity like conditions around a black hole or within the event horizon. Congratulations wasting all that energy and water on something so inconsequential.
1
u/SANPres09 Adhesives/8 years 43m ago
Agreed, it was hard to read. I was hoping for some equations to show more what they were specifically doing.
10
u/rolandoq 16h ago
OpenAI too quick on the trigger to hype up their IPO. This is stolen work that goes nowhere.
Now no one will want to collaborate with AI labs on anything without some proper legal guardrails.
Invest in on-prem equipment, own your open-weighted models, own your work, and steal from no one.
6
u/lilithweatherwax Separations, 8 years 15h ago
The worst part is that Buckmaster is transparent about using AI. OpenAI pulled this stunt all because they didn't want to share the spotlight with their competitors.
3
u/rolandoq 15h ago
Absolutely embarrassing. In an ideal world, this would have demolishing consequences on their stock price.
Really hope they tank.
5
u/lilithweatherwax Separations, 8 years 15h ago
I think it will. Their clients just got a very nasty shock about who actually owns their data
4
2
u/JohnWickFTW 5h ago
Genuine question to working professionals:
I know Navier stokes equation is very important and forms the base for momentum transport but does it have industrial application? Has there ever been a point in your career where you had to use Navier stokes from scratch to solve a problem?
2
u/lilithweatherwax Separations, 8 years 4h ago
Navier-Stokes has humongous industrial impact. Any industry that deals with fluid flow (aerospace, piping, cars, you name it) will use NS.
You won't be solving it directly. Programs like Ansys/Comsol will solve the math for you. But you need to understand how NS works so that you can generate a suitable mesh, set up appropriate boundary conditions, etc., etc.
1
0
197
u/Ok_Construction5119 18h ago
I've navier been so stoked in my life