George Khujadze

The current claim by Grebenev et al. [J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 335501 (2019)], namely that the inviscid and unclosed 2D Lundgren-Monin-Novikov (LMN) equations on a zero-vorticity Lagrangian path admit conformal invariance, is based on a flawed and misleading analysis published earlier by Grebenev et al. (2017). All false results and conclusions made before in the Eulerian picture were now extended by Grebenev et al. (2019) to the Lagrangian picture. Although we have already commented on these errors and consistently refuted their previous study (Frewer & Khujadze, 2018), we deem it necessary to address and discuss these errors again in the new formulation and notation of Grebenev et al. (2019) as it will offer new insights into this issue.

The recent study by Klingenberg, Oberlack & Pluemacher (2020) proposes a new strategy for modeling turbulence in general. A proof-of-concept is presented therein for the particular flow configuration of a spatially evolving turbulent planar jet flow, coming to the conclusion that their model can generate scaling laws which go beyond the classical ones. Our comment, however, shows that their proof-of-concept is flawed and that their newly proposed scaling laws do not go beyond any classical solutions. Hence, their argument of having established a new and more advanced turbulence model cannot be confirmed. The problem is already rooted in the modeling strategy itself, in that a nonphysical statistical scaling symmetry gets implemented. Breaking this symmetry will restore the internal consistency and will turn all self-similar solutions back to the classical ones. To note is that their model also includes a second nonphysical symmetry. One of the authors already acknowledged this fact for turbulent jet flow in a formerly published Corrigendum (Sadeghi, Oberlack & Gauding, 2020). However, the Corrigendum is not cited and so the reader is not made aware that their method has fundamental problems that lead to inconsistencies and conflicting results. Instead, the very same nonphysical symmetry gets published again. Yet, this unscientific behaviour is not corrected, but repeated and continued in the subsequent and further misleading publication Klingenberg & Oberlack (2022), which is examined in this update in the appendix.

The Lie-group-based symmetry analysis, as first proposed in Avsarkisov et al. (2014) and then later modified in Oberlack et al. (2015), to generate invariant solutions in order to predict the scaling behavior of a channel flow with uniform wall transpiration, is revisited. By focusing first on the results obtained in Avsarkisov et al. (2014), we failed to reproduce two key results: (i) For different transpiration rates at a constant Reynolds number, the mean velocity profiles (in deficit form) do not universally collapse onto a single curve as claimed. (ii) The universally proposed logarithmic scaling law in the center of the channel does not match the direct numerical simulation (DNS) data for the presented parameter values. In fact, no universal scaling behavior in the center of the channel can be detected from their DNS data, as it is misleadingly claimed in Avsarkisov et al. (2014). Moreover, we will demonstrate that the assumption of a Reynolds-number independent symmetry analysis is not justified for the flow conditions considered therein. Only when including also the viscous terms, an overall consistent symmetry analysis can be provided. This has been attempted in their subsequent study Oberlack et al. (2015). But, also the (viscous) Lie-group-based scaling theory proposed therein is inconsistent, apart from the additional fact that this study of Oberlack et al. (2015) is also technically flawed. The reason for this permanent inconsistency is that their symmetry analysis constantly involves several unphysical statistical symmetries that are incompatible to the underlying deterministic description of Navier-Stokes turbulence, in that they violate the classical principle of cause and effect. In particular, as we consequently will show, the matching to the DNS data of the scalar dissipation, being a critical indicator to judge the prediction quality of any theoretically derived scaling law, fails exceedingly.

Despite correcting their symmetry analysis in Janocha et al. (2015) according to some of our comments put forward in Symmetry 8, 23 (2016), their revised method presented in Symmetry 8, 24 (2016) is still incorrect. In fact, even more strange and unrealistic symmetries are now obtained than before the correction. The key problem is that only secondary technical errors were considered for correction, and not the primary methodological mistake itself, which, if properly corrected, would invalidate their approach. Although understood by the Referees, their Reply to our Comment was nevertheless accepted for publication, not because of the expectation to be a proper mathematical correction to their original study, but more because of the sole effort that at least some response in a written form was received.

The published Reply [Phys.Rev. E 92, 067002 (2015)] of Oberlack et al. to our Comment [Phys.Rev. E 92, 067001 (2015)] contains a new but central reasoning error which unfortunately passed the peer-review process, a mistake which when corrected would lead to an overall opposite conclusion. This notification serves to correct the mistake and will give its correct conclusion instead. Next to this issue, which is discussed in the first two sections, we also list four other, independent objections.

We present a critical examination of the recent article by Waclawczyk et al. (2014) which proposes two new statistical symmetries in the classical theory for turbulent hydrodynamic flows. We first show that both symmetries are unphysical in that they induce inconsistencies due to violating the principle of causality. In addition, they must get broken in order to be consistent with all physical constraints naturally arising in the statistical Lundgren Monin-Novikov (LMN) description of turbulence. As a result, we state that besides the well-known classical symmetries of the LMN equations no new statistical symmetries exist. Yet, aside from this particular issue, the article by Waclawczyk et al. (2014) is flawed in more than one respect, ranging from an incomplete proof, to a self-contradicting statement up to an incorrect claim. All these aspects will be listed, discussed and corrected, thus obtaining a completely opposite conclusion in our study than the article by Waclawczyk et al. (2014) is proposing.

The invariance method of Lie-groups in the theory of turbulence carries the high expectation of being a first principle method for generating statistical scaling laws. The purpose of this comment is to show that this expectation has not been met so far. In particular for wall-bounded turbulent flows, the prospects for success are not promising in view of the facts we will present herein.
Although the invariance method of Lie-groups is able to generate statistical scaling laws for wall-bounded turbulent flows, like the log-law for example, these invariant results yet not only fail to fulfil the basic requirements for a first principle result, but also are strongly misleading. The reason is that not the functional structure of the log-law itself is misleading, but that its invariant Lie-group based derivation yielding this function is what is misleading. By revisiting the study of Oberlack (2001) [M. Oberlack, A unified approach for symmetries in plane parallel turbulent shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 427, pp. 299-328] we will demonstrate that all Lie-group generated scaling laws derived therein do not convince as first principle solutions. Instead, a rigorous derivation reveals complete arbitrariness rather than uniqueness in the construction of invariant turbulent scaling laws. Important to note here is that the key results obtained in Oberlack (2001) are based on several technical errors, which all will be revealed, discussed and corrected. The reason and motivation why we put our focus solely on Oberlack (2001) is that it still marks the core study and central reference point when applying the method of Lie-groups to turbulence theory. Hence it is necessary to shed the correct light onto that study.
Nevertheless, even if the method of Lie-groups in its full extent is applied and interpreted correctly, strong natural limits of this method within the theory of turbulence exist, which, as will be finally discussed, constitute insurmountable obstacles in the progress of achieving a significant breakthrough.

A detailed theoretical investigation is given which demonstrates that a recently proposed statistical scaling symmetry is physically void. Although this scaling is mathematically admitted as a unique symmetry transformation by the underlying statistical equations for incompressible Navier-Stokes turbulence on the level of the functional Hopf equation, by closer inspection, however, it leads to physical inconsistencies and erroneous conclusions in the theory of turbulence. The new statistical symmetry is thus misleading in so far as it forms within an unmodelled theory an analytical result which at the same time lacks physical consistency. Our investigation will expose this inconsistency on different levels of statistical description, where on each level we will gain new insights for its non-physical transformation behavior. With a view to generate invariant turbulent scaling laws, the consequences will be finally discussed when trying to analytically exploit such a symmetry. In fact, a mismatch between theory and numerical experiment is conclusively quantified. We ultimately propose a general strategy on how to not only track unphysical statistical symmetries, but also on how to avoid generating such misleading invariance results from the outset. All the more so as this specific study on a physically inconsistent scaling symmetry only serves as a representative example within the broader context of statistical invariance analysis. In this sense our investigation is applicable to all areas of statistical physics in which symmetries get determined in order to either characterize complex dynamical systems, or in order to extract physically useful and meaningful information from the underlying dynamical process itself.

The article by Oberlack et al. [Phys. Rev. E 90, 01302 (2014)] proposes two new statistical symmetries in the classical theory for turbulent hydrodynamic flows. In this Comment, however, we show that both symmetries are unphysical due to violating the principle of causality. In addition, they must get broken in order to be consistent with all physical constraints naturally arising in the statistical Lundgren-Monin-Novikov (LMN) description of turbulence. As a result, we state that besides the well-known classical symmetries of the LMN equations no new statistical symmetries exist. Finally, we criticize the relation between intermittency and global symmetries as it is presented throughout that study.