Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25820408›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Conservation of writhe helicity under anti-parallel reconnection.

Christian E Laing, Renzo L Ricca, De Witt L Sumners

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Crossover from interaction to driven regimes in quantum vortex reconnections.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Reconnection scaling in quantum fluids.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Disentangling the triadic interactions in Navier-Stokes equations.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2015
    Article
  17. Helicity conservation by flow across scales in reconnecting vortex links and knots.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christian E LaingSequenom Inc., 3595 John Hopkins Court, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Renzo L RiccaDepartment of Mathematics &Applications, U. Milano-Bicocca Via Cozzi 55, 20125 Milano, Italy.
De Witt L SumnersDepartment of Mathematics, Florida State University 1017 Academic Way, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4510, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reconnection is a fundamental event in many areas of science, from the interaction of vortices in classical and quantum fluids, and magnetic flux tubes in magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics, to the recombination in polymer physics and DNA biology. By using fundamental results in topological fluid mechanics, the helicity of a flux tube can be calculated in terms of writhe and twist contributions. Here we show that the writhe is conserved under anti-parallel reconnection. Hence, for a pair of interacting flux tubes of equal flux, if the twist of the reconnected tube is the sum of the original twists of the interacting tubes, then helicity is conserved during reconnection. Thus, any deviation from helicity conservation is entirely due to the intrinsic twist inserted or deleted locally at the reconnection site. This result has important implications for helicity and energy considerations in various physical contexts.

Identifiers

PMID25820408
PMCPMC4377626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.