Is the Navier-Stokes equation valid in $d=2$ spatial dimensions?

Question

In the paper Asymptotic Time Behavior of Correlation Functions (1970), the authors study the time behaviour of the velocity-velocity correlation function of a particle in a gas. If the gas is in $d$ spatial dimensions, they find that

$$ C(t)=\frac{\langle v(0)_i v(t)_i \rangle}{\langle v(0)_i^2 \rangle} \sim t^{-d/2} $$

where the average refers to an equilibrium ensemble. Therefore, they conclude that the self-diffusion coefficient $D$ does not exist when $d=2$, so that "conventional hydrodynamics does not exist in two dimensions". This is because, thanks to the Green-Kubo formula,

$$ D \propto \int_0^{\infty} C(t) \, dt $$

the diffusion coefficient $D$ is logarithmically divergent for $d=2$.

Is this a well-known result? Does it imply that we can not apply Navier stokes for a gas in two dimensions? (i.e. interacting particles constrained on a surface can not be described in the long-wavelength limit by Navier-Stokes hydrodynamics).

Moreover, the authors of Velocity-Correlation Functions in Two and Three Dimensions: Low Density (1972) write: Physically the long-time tails $~1/t$ of the correlation functions are caused by the slowly decaying hydrodynamic modes. Kinetically, this is due to the possibility of recollisions, i.e., collisions between two particles that have collided before. They lead to a much slower decay of the initial state of a particle than if they are excluded since they can still "remind" the particle of its initial state after many collisions have taken place.

These two papers are from the '70s, which is the situation today? Can we apply Navier Stokes (or the diffusion equation) when $d=2$ and $d=1$?

Note: Of course, Navier-Stokes works in $d=2$, in the sense that it can be solved (see this answer). My question is whether Navier-Stokes can be justified from a kinetic perspective. While for $d>2$, we can derive it from kinetic theory, what about for $d<3$?

Note: Interestingly, even the Boltzmann equation seems to be problematic for some $d=2$ fluid models, see this answer.

Answer 1

There has actually been a fair amount of activity in this area recently, see, for example, this set of lecture notes.

I would argue that the answer to your question is, "yes", if properly understood.

1. The basic issue is not special to $d=2$. Fluid dynamics is an EFT of the low energy, low momentum behavior of correlations in a many-body system. The theory is expected to be valid as long as the system can locally equilibrate.

2. The theory is implemented by writing down the conservation laws for the conserved charges (possibly supplemented by Goldstone bosons), and expanding the currents in gradients of the thermodynamic variables. The order $O(\nabla)$ truncation of the stress tensor is called the Navier-Stokes equation.

3. This approach does not reproduce the correlation functions at arbitrary order in $(\omega,k)$. The issue is that any theory that operates with coarse grained variable like temperature $T$ must take into account the coarse graining scale $l$. General theorems in thermodynamics require that thermodynamic variables fluctuate, and that fluctuations depend on $l$. Indeed, by the fluctuation-dissipation relation, any theory (like Navier-Stokes) that takes into account dissipation must have fluctuations.

4. Fluctuations lead to non-analytic terms (logarithms and fractional powers) in correlation functions, and the importance of these terms is enhanced in lower dimension. While in $d=3$ fluctuations appear in between the order $\nabla$ and $\nabla^2$ terms, in $d=2$ fluctuations lead to a logarithmic divergence at the level of the Navier-Stokes equation.

5. Historically, this was first studied using kinetic approaches, but kinetic theory also does not include fluctuations in a systematic manner. Indeed, non-analyticities can be studied directly in fluid dynamics, by supplementing the theory with stochastic forces. The strength of these forces is completely fixed (at leading order) by fluctuation-dissipation relations. This approach was initiated by Landau and Lifschitz and is explained in the second volume of their book on Statistical Physics, and in the lecture notes cited above.

6. What does all of this mean for the real world? In $d=3$ we can work with the Navier-Stokes equation, but we have to keep in mind that the next correction is related to fluctuations. In $d=2$ we have to work with stochastic Navier-Stokes. This theory predicts that the shear viscosity diverges logarithmic at infinite time and infinite volume. This effect is real (it has been seen in numerical simulations, for example Leo Kadanoff et al., Phys Rev A 40 4527 (1989)), but it is hard to see in experiment.

7. In practice, a logarithmic divergence is quite weak, and two-dimensional fluids that can be studied experimentally (liquid helium films, $2d$ trapped atomic gases) are described quite well by the Navier-Stokes equation.

8. Final remark: We know that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a divergent shear viscosity. Transport coefficients diverge near second order phase transitions (such as the liquid-gas phase transition) even in $d=3$. This is described in the famous Hohenberg-Halperin review, and these effects have been verified experimentally.

Answer 2

Great question. From what I was able to find, the problem is well-known under the name of "2D long-time tail problem" (for instance, mentioned in these and these proceedings). There is extensive literature on the subject with regular and numerical experiments, as well as some theoretical approaches (like the paper you mention). The research is usually concerned with the validity of the slow decay of the correlation function $C(t)$. You can check a recent paper "Nature of self-diffusion in two-dimensional fluids" for theory and references. The paper utilizes a self-consistent approach to the correlation function $C(t)$ with time-dependent diffusion and shear viscosity coefficients. The conclusion of the paper is that while the diffusion coefficient diverges at later times, the viscosity coefficient approaches a finite value. Linearized Navier-Stokes with time-dependent coefficients is used in the theory part of this paper, as well as in many other papers.

From my impression, I am not sure, whether the approach with Navier-Stokes equations with time-dependent coefficients is justified: it works numerically in the particular case that the studies consider, but I am not sure how to adopt it to the regular hydrodynamic setups in 2D, where everything is static.