论文标题
相对论流体,流体动力框架及其伽利亚与卡洛利亚化身
Relativistic Fluids, Hydrodynamic Frames and their Galilean versus Carrollian Avatars
论文作者
论文摘要
在存在物质/电荷保守的电流的情况下,我们全面研究了在任意背景上的加利利和卡罗利亚流体动力学。为此,我们遵循两个不同的互补路径。首先是基于局部不变性的,无论是galilean还是Carrollian diffemormormism不变性,可能伴随着Weyl不变性。第二个是在选择适应的量规,前者的ADM-Zermelo和后者的Papapetrou-randers之后,以较大或较小的光速分析相对论流体方程组成。毫不奇怪,结果同意,但是第二种方法是优越的,因为它毫不费力地捕获了具有多种自由度的更精致的情况。此外,它允许在手头的两个限制中调查流体动力框架不变性的命运,并得出结论,其破裂(在加利利人)或其保存(在卡罗利亚人中)是大或小$ c $的运输属性行为的脆弱后果。这两种方法也确实同意相对论理论中的Noetherian电流的厄运:由于Galilean或Carrollian等异形体的结果,在牛顿 - 卡丹或Carroll SpaceTime中并不总是保证非平凡的电流。 Galilean和Carrollian Fluid方程的比较表现出惊人但经常表面上的相似之处,我们就黑洞式动力学评论了,这与Navier-Stokes方程相似。在一个实例中,这种一致性是真实的,然后证明了亚里士多德动态,这是我们议程中的最后一项。
We comprehensively study Galilean and Carrollian hydrodynamics on arbitrary backgrounds, in the presence of a matter/charge conserved current. For this purpose, we follow two distinct and complementary paths. The first is based on local invariance, be it Galilean or Carrollian diffeomorphism invariance, possibly accompanied by Weyl invariance. The second consists in analyzing the relativistic fluid equations at large or small speed of light, after choosing an adapted gauge, ADM-Zermelo for the former and Papapetrou-Randers for the latter. Unsurprisingly, the results agree, but the second approach is superior as it effortlessly captures more elaborate situations with multiple degrees of freedom. It furthermore allows to investigate the fate of hydrodynamic-frame invariance in the two limits at hand, and conclude that its breaking (in the Galilean) or its preservation (in the Carrollian) are fragile consequences of the behaviour of transport attributes at large or small $c$. Both methods do also agree on the doom of Noetherian currents generated in the relativistic theory by isometries: non-trivial currents are not always guaranteed in Newton-Cartan or Carroll spacetimes as a consequence of Galilean or Carrollian isometries. Comparison of Galilean and Carrollian fluid equations exhibits a striking but often superficial resemblance, which we comment in relation to black-hole horizon dynamics, awkwardly akin to Navier-Stokes equations. This congruity is authentic in one instance though and turns out then to describe Aristotelian dynamics, which is the last item in our agenda.