alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

The Nonlinear Physics and Statistical Field Theory of Twilight Clouds: Hovering Dynamics and Dynamic Inertia Emergence

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

Twilight clouds are small, optically faint warm clouds whose droplets fluctuate between haze and activated growth. We develop a nonequilibrium statistical field theory linking this regime to cloud-field organization through Köhler microphysics, supersaturation transport, and turbulent mixing. At parcel level, supersaturation rapidly tracks slow droplet growth with a finite lag. Mixing-induced supersaturation removal drives a saddle-node bifurcation, shifting the activation threshold and supporting intermittent hovering under turbulent fluctuations. Starting from turbulent transport of supersaturation coupled to droplet growth, we derive a droplet-supersaturation field system and formulate it within the Martin-Siggia-Rose framework. A Gurari-type variational reduction inspired by polaron theory eliminates the fast bath. Turbulence dresses the slow droplet field, shrinks the forbidden zone below the equilibrium curve, and raises the mixing threshold required to suppress activation. Each droplet population induces a screened supersaturation halo that couples neighboring cloud elements; its delayed adjustment generates dynamic inertia and temporally correlated noise. The resulting nonlinear, non-Markovian pseudoparabolic stochastic equation has a bounded frozen-background response at short wavelengths. Its long-wave coupling amplifies contrasts where the dressed slow manifold turns downward. Comparisons with the parent two-field system show that a spatially correlated Markovian closure preserves droplet-radius distributions and cloudlet organization. Near the activation fold, restoring residual-bath fluctuation memory improves recurrent-hovering frequency and patch extent without recalibrating the drift or fitting a correlation time. More broadly, the framework identifies how slow fields acquire interactions and inertia through the relaxing, diffusive environments they modify.

Appendix Emergent Noise Variance: Physical Constraint

Introduction

The coupling of cloud microphysics with climate dynamics remains one of the most challenging problems in atmospheric science. Failure to accurately parameterize clouds is responsible for the largest source of uncertainty in global climate projections [1]. Addressing this requires a more precise description of the nonlinear processes governing the onset and development of clouds, especially considering the vast spatial and temporal scale separation between global circulation and fine-scale turbulent motions.

Among all cloud types, the warm and smallest ones—often termed “twilight clouds”—are particularly difficult to capture in climate models despite their abundance [2, 3, 4, 5]. These clouds mark the transition from non-activating haze to fully activated cloud droplets. Their constituent particles reside in a precarious, marginal state highly sensitive to initial perturbations, with microphysical structures centered near the critical activation radius [6]. Complementary work has shown that these small clouds often form in buoyant humidity pockets, resulting in sub-Lifting Condensation Level (subLCL) clouds that oscillate between haze and cloud states [7, 8, 9].

Understanding the dynamics of droplet transitions in this marginal environment is the central goal of this study. To tackle this, we develop a theory that starts at the scale of an isolated moist parcel—where droplet growth is governed by Köhler thermodynamics, molecular diffusion, and mixing-induced supersaturation removal—and then lifts the resulting slow dynamics to a macroscopic cloud field through non-equilibrium statistical field theory. The unifying structure across these scales is the emergence of a slow manifold: a dynamical backbone on which the fast supersaturation environment is slaved to the slower evolution of the droplet-growth variable.

Classical Köhler theory [10] robustly explains the activation of individual cloud condensation nuclei [11], but it is not by itself a theory of marginal clouds. In real clouds, populations of growing droplets deplete and reshape the surrounding supersaturation field [11, 12, 13], while turbulent mixing and weak updrafts continuously perturb the thermodynamic balance. Detailed parcel models can incorporate these effects by coupling thermodynamics, droplet growth, and vertical motion [6, 7, 8, 9], but their complexity makes it difficult to isolate analytical mechanisms and scaling laws.

Here we focus on weak-updraft regimes, where supersaturation production is limited and droplets remain close to critical activation conditions. To expose the organizing dynamics of this regime, we adopt a reduced dynamical-systems approach [14, 15, 16], grounded in first-principles microphysics and closed by parameterizing unresolved turbulent exchange [14]. The starting point is the core Köhler diffusional-growth equation [15, 16], which is especially relevant near cloud base, where activation is initiated and where small, marginal or twilight clouds are prone to be encountered. This reduction is justified by a separation of timescales: supersaturation adjusts on microphysical timescales that are typically much shorter than the mesoscale evolution controlling the ascent. The vertical velocity may therefore be treated as quasi-steady at leading order, while retaining the essential competition between adiabatic cooling, condensational depletion of supersaturation, and unresolved mixing. Measurements in newly forming shallow cumuli show substantial supersaturation fluctuations superposed on a quasi-steady background, emphasizing the competition between turbulent mixing and condensational relaxation [17].

In our reduced parcel model approach, environmental mixing enters as a net supersaturation removal rate λ\lambda, with turbulent variability represented by stochastic fluctuations of intensity σ\sigma (Section VI). The deterministic dynamics already reveal the central geometry: our analysis exposes that supersaturation rapidly approaches and tracks its quasi-steady nullcline, with a lag quantified below (§ 0.6), and mixing-induced removal drives a saddle-node bifurcation on this manifold (Section IV). The saddle-node creates an edge state that replaces the classical Köhler activation radius by a dynamically shifted threshold R∗>RcR^{*} > R_{c}. This defines a forbidden zone: a region below the classical Köhler equilibrium curve where deterministic intuition would predict immediate return to haze, but where the slow-fast dynamics create a metastable transition layer.

The stochastic analysis then explains why this layer can persist. Using a small-noise reduction [18, 19], we derive in Section VII an effective stochastic differential equation constrained to the slow manifold. A Lamperti transformation [20] casts this reduced dynamics into a gradient form [21, 22], exposing the potential landscape near the activation edge (Section VII B). In the supercritical mixing regime λ>λc\lambda> \lambda_{\mathrm{c}}, the effective potential flattens near the saddle-node (Section VII C). Droplets need not immediately activate or evaporate; instead, they hover near the edge state for extended periods, producing intermittent transitions between haze and activation (Section VII D). This mechanism gives a dynamical explanation for the fleeting, optically faint character of twilight clouds and recovers the observed scale of 1–2μ\mum droplet-size distributions in weak-updraft regimes [6].

The 0D parcel description, however, is intrinsically local. It captures temporal hovering, but it cannot describe how neighboring cloud elements communicate through the supersaturation field, nor how hovering states organize across space. We therefore pass from isolated parcels to a spatially extended mean-field theory. Starting from the standard fluid-dynamical description of turbulent warm-cloud microphysics, and retaining Köhler activation physics at the level of a coarse-grained droplet population, we derive a degenerate stochastic droplet–supersaturation reaction–diffusion system; see Section VIII and Supplementary Note 5. The slow field is the mean-square-radius field ϕ(x,t)=⟨R⟩x,t\phi(x,t) = \langle R\rangle_{x,t}, representing the local coarse-grained droplet population, while the fast field χ(x,t)\chi(x,t) is the resolved supersaturation bath sampled by that population. The system is degenerate in the sense that diffusion does not act on both fields symmetrically: the slow droplet field ϕ\phi evolves locally through condensation and Köhler feedback, whereas diffusion acts only on the fast supersaturation field χ\chi, through the effective scalar diffusivity DχD_{\chi}, which includes the turbulent eddy-diffusivity contribution from the unresolved transport fluctuations. Thus, the model is not a standard two-field reaction–diffusion system with independent smoothing of both components; it is a partially parabolic slow–fast system in which neighboring droplet populations communicate indirectly through the diffusing supersaturation bath. This construction provides a leading-order closure that bypasses the need to resolve the full droplet-size distribution through bin microphysics [e.g. [23, 24, 25]], while still retaining the dominant nonlinear Köhler feedback mechanism inherited from the parcel level (Appendices A and B).

We then embed this stochastic reaction–diffusion system in the Martin–Siggia–Rose–Janssen–de Dominicis (MSR) path-integral formalism [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31] (Section VIII). This step is not merely a change of notation: it recasts the droplet–supersaturation system as a response theory in which the fast supersaturation bath can be eliminated at the level of the action. The resulting construction reveals a useful structural analogy with the polaron problem in solid-state physics [32]. In the Fröhlich–Gurari picture, a slow electron becomes dressed by a polarization envelope of a fast medium, thereby modifying its effective dynamics [33, 34]. In the cloud problem, the slow object is not an individual microscopic droplet, but the local coarse-grained droplet population represented by ϕ\phi. The corresponding fast medium is the supersaturation bath χ\chi, and the analogue of the polarization envelope is a statistically localized supersaturation halo generated by the turbulent bath response. The resulting object is therefore a collective “cloud polaron”: a droplet field dragging a supersaturation response, rather than a single droplet carrying a microscopic vapor shell.

Using a Gurari-type variational shift, we integrate out the fast supersaturation bath around its turbulently dressed slow manifold. As in Gurari’s treatment of the polaron [33], the displacement of the fast field is a variational object, fixed by a stationarity condition; it is the retarded, spatially screened response of the bath to the droplet field, and its denominator has the same structure as Gurari’s optimal phonon displacements, with the bath relaxation rate in place of the phonon frequency, the diffusive cost in place of the recoil energy, and the evolution of the droplet field in place of the motion of the electron. The turbulent fluctuations enter this bath through the supersaturation equation itself: the unresolved mixing and exchange term with the dry air is decomposed into a mean removal rate and a fluctuating component, producing a multiplicative noise of the form σχη\sigma\chi\eta at the level of the fast field χ\chi, with η\eta denoting Gaussian noise that is white in time and correlated in space, as specified in Eq. (66) below. Thus, turbulence is not imposed as an additive random force on the droplet equation. It acts by modulating the supersaturation bath sampled by the local droplet population.

This distinction is essential in the MSR reduction aimed at a closed ϕ\phi-equation. Because the noise amplitude is state-dependent, Σ(χ)=σχ\Sigma(\chi) = \sigma\chi, and because the mixing-rate fluctuations have a finite correlation time, so that their white-noise limit is of Stratonovich type [35], the transformation from noise histories to supersaturation histories carries a non-trivial functional Jacobian [30, 36, 37, 38]. After regularization at the Kolmogorov scale, converting the Stratonovich equation to Itô form gives the relaxation-rate correction −σΣ2/τK-\sigma_{\Sigma}^{2}/\tau_{K}. The equivalent midpoint formulation accounts for this correction through its prescription-dependent measure terms (Appendix C); it is included only once. Here σΣ2\sigma_{\Sigma}^{2} is the dimensionless mixing-fluctuation strength and τK\tau_{K} is the Kolmogorov turnover timescale. The correction offsets part of the background supersaturation relaxation, so that turbulence dresses the Köhler slow manifold itself rather than merely adding fluctuations around it. At the parcel level, this turbulent dressing shifts the saddle-node threshold to a larger effective mixing rate and shrinks the forbidden zone. In physical terms, a stronger drying environment is required to suppress activation once the local coarse-grained droplet population is coupled to, and dressed by, its turbulent supersaturation bath.

The same reduction also determines how the local dressing acquires a spatial character. When the zero-diffusion bath limit is relaxed, the supersaturation response is no longer pointwise: neighboring coarse-grained droplet populations interact through the non-local operator Lϕ−1=[Γ∗(ϕ)−Dχ∇2]−1\mathcal{L}_{\phi}^{-1} = [\Gamma^{*}(\phi) - D_{\chi}\nabla^{2}]^{-1} through the non-local operator Lϕ−1=[Γ∗(ϕ)−Dχ∇2]−1\mathcal{L}_{\phi}^{-1} = [\Gamma^{*}(\phi) - D_{\chi}\nabla^{2}]^{-1}, where Γ∗(ϕ)\Gamma^{*}(\phi) is the turbulently dressed supersaturation relaxation rate toward the dressed slow manifold χ0∗(ϕ)\chi_{0}^{*}(\phi), while DχD_{\chi} is the effective supersaturation diffusivity. The Bessel Green’s function of Lϕ−1\mathcal{L}_{\phi}^{-1} defines then the screening length, Lscrn=Dχ/Γ∗(ϕ)L_{\mathrm{scrn}}=\sqrt{D_{\chi}/\Gamma^{*}(\phi)}, over which the supersaturation halos attached to neighboring coarse-grained cloud elements interact effectively. Written in local form, this screened response yields the pseudo-parabolic operator −∇⋅(ϵ(ϕ)∇∂tϕ)-\nabla\cdot\left(\epsilon(\phi)\nabla\partial_t\phi\right), with coefficient ϵ(ϕ)=Dχ/Γ∗(ϕ)=Lscrn2\epsilon(\phi)=D_{\chi}/\Gamma^{*}(\phi)=L_{\mathrm{scrn}}^{2}, which records the spatial footprint of the dragged supersaturation halo: a change of the droplet field at one point alters the growth tendency over the whole screening disk. When the finite relaxation time of the bath is retained at first order in the ratio of slow to fast rates, the halo also lags behind the droplet field, and this lag renormalizes the coefficient of ∂tϕ\partial_t\phi. This is the cloud analogue of the polaron effective mass [33, 34], and, as for the polaron, it is set by the ratio of the bath-mediated coupling rate to the bath relaxation rate. Together, the footprint and the lag form the dynamic-inertia operator, which confers on the macroscopic droplet field a memory of the supersaturation bath it drags (Figure 18).

What the elimination of the supersaturation bath reveals: two-field system, MSR path integral, Gurari variational shift, closed equation for $\phi$, dressed slow manifold, halo and screening operator, delayed halo and dynamic inertia, and closed droplet-field equation

Figure 18. What the elimination of the supersaturation bath reveals. Top: reduction of the droplet–supersaturation system (Eq. (74)) through the MSR action and the Gurari variational shift (Section VIII). (a) Turbulent dressing lifts the slow manifold χ0(ϕ)\chi_0(\phi) to χ0∗(ϕ)\chi^*_{0}(\phi) (Eq. (86)) moves the edge state R∗R^* toward critical (squared) radius RcR_c, and shrinks the forbidden zone; the slope of χ0∗\chi^*_{0} changes sign at ϕm\phi_m (Eq. (158)) separating diffusive from anti-diffusive coupling; see Eq. (156). Curves are drawn for illustrative parameters. (b) Each coarse-grained droplet population drags a supersaturation halo, the screened response Lϕ−1J\mathcal{L}_{\phi}^{-1}J with Bessel kernel (Eq. (111)) and footprint ϵ=Lscrn2\epsilon=L_{\mathrm{scrn}}^2 (Eq. (123)) while the overlapping halos couple neighboring cloud elements. (c) The halo relaxes at rate Γ∗\Gamma^* and lags its target, renormalizing the inertia through a(ϕ)a(\phi); see Eq. (130). Bottom: the resulting closure, Eq. (142). Noise-driven hovering (Section VII B) is not drawn here: in (a), it would appear as stochastic excursions of ϕ\phi along and transverse to the dressed manifold (as in Figure 15 and Figure 16) from the haze state toward the weakly repelling edge state R∗R^*, lingering in the forbidden zone before returning to haze or activating. Supplementary Note 6 summarizes the construction of the closed droplet-field equation (Eq. (142)).

The same stationarity condition that fixes the Gurari displacement also yields the retarded, nonlocal bath response from which the screening and the lag both follow, so that the two components of the dynamic inertia are the spatial and temporal faces of a single dressed object.

The resulting non-Markovian droplet-field closure is a nonlinear pseudo-parabolic stochastic partial differential equation (SPDE) for ϕ\phi of Barenblatt–Zheltov–Kochina (BZK) type [39, 40], reminiscent of pseudo-parabolic models arising in heat conduction in materials with two distinct temperatures [41], fluid seepage through fissured rock formations [39], and radiative transfer theory [42]. Its stochastic forcing is not imposed externally: it is the colored macroscopic noise left behind by the elimination of the supersaturation bath.

This structure also resonates with recent progress on the reduction of SPDEs forced by multiplicative noise acting in the unresolved, or orthogonal, component of the dynamics. In such settings, stochastic parameterization formulas show that fluctuations in the eliminated sector are transmitted to the resolved large-scale modes as non-Markovian stochastic coefficients in the reduced equation [43, 44]. These coefficients depend explicitly on the history of the noise path, and their memory content is determined self-consistently by the noise intensity and by the way the unresolved fluctuations interact with the resolved variables through the nonlinear terms of the SPDE. The present cloud reduction provides a physically explicit realization of this mechanism: multiplicative turbulent supersaturation fluctuations in the fast bath become, after elimination, colored and memory-bearing stochastic forcing in the slow droplet-field equation.

Other spatial terms arising in the non-Markovian closure are equally structured. At long wavelengths, the halo-mediated coupling acts on the droplet field as Kϕ=2∇⋅(ϵ(ϕ)∇χ0∗(ϕ))\mathcal{K}_{\phi}=2\nabla\cdot\left(\epsilon(\phi)\nabla\chi_{0}^{*}(\phi)\right), where χ0∗(ϕ)\chi_{0}^{*}(\phi) is the turbulently dressed slow manifold, built on the mean-field projection fˉ(ϕ)\bar{f}(\phi) of the Köhler curve (Appendix A). Its sign is set by the slope of the dressed slow manifold, which increases with ϕ\phi in the haze regime and decreases beyond a maximum located close to the Köhler critical radius. In the haze regime the coupling acts diffusively, smoothing unactivated aerosol fluctuations (Section IX G). Beyond the maximum, the same coupling becomes anti-diffusive, reinforcing spatial contrasts between cloudy and dry regions; the pseudo-parabolic operator keeps this backward diffusion well posed [45, 46]. In this sense, the term has a “rich-get-richer” structure: activated coarse-grained droplet populations draw supersaturation from their surroundings and sharpen their contrast with neighboring haze-like regions. This provides a thermodynamic mechanism for edge sharpening and pattern formation, complemented by a nonlinear squared-gradient term that emerges from the expansion of Kϕ\mathcal{K}_{\phi} and has the form that, for an interface height, generates Kardar–Parisi–Zhang (KPZ) growth [47, 48, 49]; see Section IX G.

We test the spatial reduction directly in a regime where the bath’s temporal memory is neglected but its spatial response is retained. The resulting Markovian closure evolves only the mean-square-radius field, with the same screened operator acting on drift and forcing (Section IX F). Starting from a uniform edge state, it reproduces the coupled droplet–supersaturation system’s progression from hovering through connected haze regions to activated cloudlets (Figure 19). Agreement extends to the evolving distribution of local root-mean-square radius and the number and area of cloudlets (Figure 20). These comparisons show that eliminating the bath can preserve both population statistics and spatial organization, providing a numerical test of the screened field theory. A second comparison starts from uniform haze near the saddle-node threshold (§ 0.11 B). Keeping the screened deterministic drift unchanged, we restore the residual bath’s finite relaxation (making the closure non-Markovian) and find improved agreement with the parent system in the frequency and spatial extent of recurrent hovering (Figure 21 and Figure 22). The bath sets the fluctuation-memory timescales without additional fitting. This experiment isolates the contribution of colored forcing to the non-Markovian reduction.

Cloud-layer organization from the edge state

Figure 19. Cloud-layer organization from the edge state. Local root-mean-square-radius field r=ϕr=\sqrt{\phi} of the droplet–supersaturation system, Eq. (74) (top), and of the spatially correlated Markovian closure, Eq. (149) (bottom), at t=10t=10, 1515, 2020 and 40 min40\ \mathrm{min}, for N=500 cm−3N=500\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}, λ∗=1.65λc\lambda^{*}=1.65\lambda_{c} and σ=0.1\sigma=0.1. Both models start from the uniform edge state and are driven by the same noise realization. The prescribed bath-noise correlation length ℓnoise\ell_{\mathrm{noise}} and the haze screening length ℓscrn\ell_{\mathrm{scrn}} are both 4h4h, with Dχ/h2=1.326 s−1D_{\chi}/h^{2}=1.326\ \mathrm{s}^{-1} on a 128h×128h128h\times128h domain; the closure retains both the supplied noise covariance and the screened response. The numbers below each panel give the percentages of haze, hovering and activated cells.

Radius distributions and pattern statistics for the simulations

Figure 20. Edge-state start (ϕ=R∗\phi= R^*); N=500 cm−3N = 500\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}, λ∗=1.65λc\lambda^* = 1.65\lambda_c, σ=0.1\sigma= 0.1, μ=0\mu= 0; 128×128128 \times128 cells, Dχ=1.326 h2s−1D_\chi= 1.326\ h^2\mathrm{s}^{-1} (ℓscrn,haze=4h\ell_{\mathrm{scrn,haze}} = 4h); noise correlated over 4h4h. Truth (two-field) Markovian closure – spatially correlated (Lϕ−1\mathcal{L}_\phi^{-1}). Radius distributions and pattern statistics for the simulations of Figure 19. Top: spatial probability density of the local root-mean-square radius r=ϕr = \sqrt{\phi} over the 1282128^2 cells at t=10t = 10, 15, 20 and 40 min (60 logarithmic bins); the dotted lines mark rcr_c and r∗r^*. Bottom: number of hovering patches, number of activated cloudlets and mean cloudlet area, in grid cells, as functions of time. Patches and cloudlets are the connected components, with periodic four-neighbor connectivity, of the hovering band rc≤r≤2 r∗r_c \le r \le\sqrt{2}\,r^* and of the activated set r>2 r∗r > \sqrt{2}\,r^*. Black: droplet–supersaturation system; red dashed: spatially correlated Markovian closure.

Recurrent hovering near the fold bifurcation

Figure 21. Recurrent hovering near the fold bifurcation. Local root-mean-square-radius field r=ϕr = \sqrt{\phi} of the droplet–supersaturation system, Eq. (74) (top), the non-Markovian colored-noise closure with residual bath zz Eq. (160) (middle), and the spatially correlated Markovian closure, Eq. (149) (bottom), at t=2.5t = 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min, for N=500 cm−3N = 500\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}, λ∗=1.25λc\lambda^{*} = 1.25\lambda_{c} and σ=0.13\sigma= 0.13 on a 64h×64h64h \times64h domain, with Dχ/h2=1.326 s−1D_{\chi}/h^{2} = 1.326\ \mathrm{s}^{-1} and ℓnoise=4h\ell_{\mathrm{noise}} = 4h. All three models start from uniform haze, ϕ=Rh\phi= R_{h}, and are driven by the same noise realization. The numbers below each panel give the percentages of haze, hovering and activated cells.

Four-panel plots showing hovering fraction, entry rate into hovering, hovering residence, and connected hovering patches

Figure 22. Frequency, duration and extent of hovering excursions for the simulations of Figure 21. (a) Percentage of hovering cells. (b) Rate of entry into resolved hovering spells per cell-minute spent in haze, in four five-minute windows. (c) Residence-time survival curves, giving the fraction of resolved hovering spells lasting longer than τ\tau, separately for spells ending in haze and in activation. (d) Mean size, in grid cells, of the connected hovering patches, with periodic four-neighbor connectivity. Resolved hovering spells and the intervening haze intervals last at least 5 s; the improvement persists when this minimum duration is varied from 2 to 10 s. Black: droplet–supersaturation system; blue dotted: Markovian closure; red dash-dotted: non-Markovian colored-noise closure, Eq. (160).

By uniting slow-fast parcel microphysics, turbulence modeling and non-equilibrium statistical field theory, this work provides a first-principles route from Köhler activation to a macroscopic stochastic cloud-field equation. The theory explains how turbulent mixing creates hovering near a saddle-node edge state, how turbulent dressing shrinks the forbidden zone, how screened supersaturation halos couple neighboring cloud elements, and how delayed bath relaxation generates dynamic inertia and colored noise. These mechanisms identify the operators through which subgrid supersaturation fluctuations organize the morphology and persistence of twilight clouds.

The reduction principle behind these results has a scope well beyond cloud physics. It transposes to fields the polaron mechanism by which a slow particle, by polarizing a fast medium, acquires a dressed energy and an effective mass. Its premise is generic: a slow field with little or no intrinsic transport, coupled to a relaxing, diffusive environment that it modifies. Eliminating that environment within the MSR formulation dresses the local dynamics, induces screened interactions through the environmental halo, renormalizes the inertia of the slow field, and colors its fluctuations. The same premise underlies dryland vegetation–water feedbacks, in which slowly spreading biomass redistributes soil water and organizes vegetation patterns [50, 51], and populations of oscillators or cells communicating through a rapidly diffusing chemical, whose adiabatic elimination yields a screened nonlocal coupling of the same form [52]. It extends naturally to bacterial colonies whose growth and mobility depend on a diffusing nutrient [53] and to transport in heterogeneous media, where distributed exchange times generate memory [54]. The polaron picture also has a classical counterpart in plasma physics, the dressed test particle with its shielding cloud [55], which links the reduction to dense and complex plasmas. In each setting, the slow-field closure framework described in this work offers a systematic route from the coupled dynamics to an effective equation for the slow field that retains the interactions, memory, and fluctuations inherited from its environment (Section XI).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Sections III and IV introduce at the parcel level, the reduced droplet-growth framework and the effect of mixing-induced supersaturation removal, notably in the creation of a saddle-node activation threshold. Section V analyzes the slow manifold and the exponential supersaturation relaxation rate to it. Sections VI and VII derive the reduced stochastic dynamics and use the Lamperti transformation to characterize hovering. Section VIII then lifts the parcel theory to the MSR field level. In Section VIII B, we construct the isolated slow-droplet action Sϕ\mathcal{S}_{\phi}, the isolated fast-bath action Sχ\mathcal{S}_{\chi}, and the condensation coupling action Sint\mathcal{S}_{\mathrm{int}}. We then integrate over the fast supersaturation bath using a Gurari-type variational construction [33] in Section VIII C. The first resulting closure, derived in Section VIII C.6, is obtained under two simplifying assumptions: a Markovian approximation, in which the bath relaxes instantaneously relative to the slow droplet field, and a zero-diffusion bath limit, in which the spatial redistribution of χ\chi is neglected at leading order. These restrictions are relaxed in Section IX, where finite bath relaxation and spatial supersaturation redistribution generate the non-Markovian pseudo-parabolic droplet-field equation, including dynamic inertia, colored noise, and Köhler-mediated anti-diffusion. Section X tests the spatially correlated Markovian closure and the effect of residual-bath fluctuation memory against the coupled field system. Section XI discusses the implications for twilight clouds, subgrid cloud modeling, and response-based cloud closures.

The Fleeting and Visually Faint Nature of Twilight Clouds

References

  1. [1]M. D. Zelinka, T. A. Myers, D. T. McCoy, S. Po-Chedley, P. M. Caldwell, P. Ceppi, S. A. Klein, and K. E. Taylor, “Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 47, no. 1, p. e2019GL085782, 2020.DOI
  2. [2]I. Koren, L. A. Remer, Y. J. Kaufman, Y. Rudich, and J. V. Martins, “On the twilight zone between clouds and aerosols,” Geophysical research letters, vol. 34, no. 8, 2007.DOI
  3. [3]T. Várnai and A. Marshak, “MODIS observations of enhanced clear sky reflectance near clouds,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 36, no. 6, 2009.DOI
  4. [4]E. Eytan, I. Koren, O. Altaratz, A. Kostinsky, and A. Ronen, “Longwave radiative effect of the cloud twilight zone,” Nature Geoscience, vol. 13, pp. 669–673, 2020.DOI
  5. [5]E. Eytan, J. J. Gristey, and G. Feingold, “The net radiative effect of the ill-defined clear-sky in the vicinity of clouds,” AGU Advances, vol. 6, no. 1, p. e2024AV001407, 2025.DOI
  6. [6]E. Hirsch, I. Koren, Z. Levin, O. Altaratz, and E. Agassi, “On transition-zone water clouds,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 14, no. 17, pp. 9001–9012, 2014.DOI
  7. [7]E. Hirsch, I. Koren, O. Altaratz, and E. Agassi, “On the properties and radiative effects of small convective clouds during the eastern mediterranean summer,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 044006, 2015.DOI
  8. [8]E. Hirsch, I. Koren, O. Altaratz, Z. Levin, and E. Agassi, “Enhanced humidity pockets originating in the mid boundary layer as a mechanism of cloud formation below the lifting condensation level,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 024020, 2017.DOI
  9. [9]O. Altaratz, I. Koren, E. Agassi, E. Hirsch, Y. Levi, and N. Stav, “The environmental conditions behind the formation of small (subcl) clouds,” Geophysical research letters, vol. 48, no. 23, p. e2021GL096242, 2021.DOI
  10. [10]H. Köhler, “The nucleus in and the growth of hygroscopic droplets,” Trans. Faraday Soc., vol. 32, pp. 1152–1161, 1936.DOI
  11. [11]A. P. Khain and M. Pinsky, Physical Processes in Clouds and Cloud Modeling. Cambridge University Press, 2018.DOI
  12. [12]A. V. Korolev and I. P. Mazin, “Supersaturation of water vapor in clouds,” J. Atmos. Sci., vol. 60, no. 24, pp. 2957–2974, 2003.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060<2957:sowvic>2.0.co;2
  13. [13]M. Pinsky, I. P. Mazin, K. Korolev, and A. Khan, “Supersaturation and diffusional droplet growth in liquid clouds,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 2778–2793, 2007.
  14. [14]V. Lucarini and M. D. Chekroun, “Theoretical tools for understanding the climate crisis from Hasselmann’s programme and beyond,” Nature Reviews Physics, 2023. doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00650-8.DOI
  15. [15]S. Arabas and S. Shima, “On the CCN (de)activation nonlinearities,” Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 535–542, 2017.DOI
  16. [16]M. Santos Gutiérrez, M. D. Chekroun, and I. Koren, “Gibbs states and Brownian models for coexisting haze and cloud droplets,” Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 46, p. eadq7518, 2024. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adq7518.DOI
  17. [17]H. Siebert and R. A. Shaw, “Supersaturation fluctuations during the early stage of cumulus formation,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 975 – 988, 2017.
  18. [18]C. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, vol. 13 of Springer Series in Synergetics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  19. [19]M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell, Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems, vol. 260. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  20. [20]J. Lamperti, “Semi-stable stochastic processes,” Transactions of the American mathematical Society, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 62–78, 1962.DOI
  21. [21]N. Berglund, “Kramers’ law: Validity, derivations and generalisations,” 2011.
  22. [22]G. A. Pavliotis, Stochastic Processes and Applications, vol. 60. Springer, New York, 2014.DOI
  23. [23]S. Tzivion, G. Feingold, and Z. Levin, “An efficient numerical solution to the stochastic collection equation,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 44, no. 21, pp. 3139–3149, 1987.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<3139:aenstt>2.0.co;2
  24. [24]G. Feingold, B. Stevens, W. R. Cotton, and R. L. Walko, “An explicit cloud microphysics/LES model designed to simulate the Twomey effect,” Atmospheric Research, vol. 33, no. 1–4, pp. 207–233, 1994.DOI
  25. [25]A. P. Khain, K. D. Beheng, A. Heymsfield, A. Korolev, S. O. Krichak, Z. Levin, M. Pinsky, V. Phillips, T. Prabhakaran, A. Teller, S. C. van den Heever, and J.-I. Yano, “Representation of microphysical processes in cloud-resolving models: Spectral (bin) microphysics versus bulk parameterization,” Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 247–322, 2015.DOI
  26. [26]P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia, and H. A. Rose, “Statistical Dynamics of Classical Systems,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 8, pp. 423–437, Jul 1973.DOI
  27. [27]H.-K. Janssen, “On a Lagrangean for classical field dynamics and renormalization group calculations of dynamical critical properties,” Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 377–380, 1976.DOI
  28. [28]C. de Dominicis, “Techniques de renormalisation de la théorie des champs et dynamique des phénomènes critiques,” J. Phys., Colloq., vol. 37, p. 247, 1976.DOI
  29. [29]A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  30. [30]U. C. Täuber, Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Approach to Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Scaling Behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
  31. [31]M. J. del Razo, T. Lamma, and W. Merbis, “Field theories and quantum methods for stochastic reaction-diffusion systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 98, no. 1, p. 015001, 2026.DOI
  32. [32]J. T. T. Devreese and A. S. Alexandrov, “Fröhlich polaron and bipolaron: recent developments,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 72, no. 6, p. 066501, 2009.DOI
  33. [33]M. Gurari, “XXXVI. Self energy of slow electrons in polar materials,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, vol. 44, no. 350, pp. 329–336, 1953.DOI
  34. [34]R. P. Feynman, “Slow electrons in a polar crystal,” Physical Review, vol. 97, no. 3, p. 660, 1955.DOI
  35. [35]E. Wong and M. Zakai, “On the convergence of ordinary integrals to stochastic integrals,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1560–1564, 1965.
  36. [36]J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena, vol. 113 of International Series of Monographs on Physics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 4 ed., 2002.
  37. [37]C. Aron, G. Biroli, and L. F. Cugliandolo, “Symmetries of generating functionals of Langevin processes with multiplicative noise,” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2010, no. 11, p. P11018, 2010.DOI
  38. [38]C. Aron, D. G. Barci, L. F. Cugliandolo, Z. G. Arenas, and G. S. Lozano, “Dynamical symmetries of Markov processes with multiplicative white noise,” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2016, no. 5, p. 053207, 2016.
  39. [39]G. I. Barenblatt, I. P. Zheltov, and I. Kochina, “Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks [strata],” Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1286–1303, 1960.DOI
  40. [40]G. Barenblatt and Y. P. Zheltov, “Fundamental equations of filtration of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks,” in Soviet Physics Doklady, vol. 5, p. 522, 1960.
  41. [41]P. J. Chen and M. E. Gurtin, “On a theory of heat conduction involving two temperatures,” J. Appl. Math. and Phys. (ZAMP), vol. 19, pp. 614–627, 1968.
  42. [42]V. V. Sobolev, “A Treatise on Radiative Transfer,” Princeton, 1963.
  43. [43]M. D. Chekroun, H. Liu, J. C. McWilliams, and S. Wang, “Transitions in stochastic non-equilibrium systems: Efficient reduction and analysis,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 346, pp. 145–204, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2022.11.025.DOI
  44. [44]M. D. Chekroun, H. Liu, and J. C. McWilliams, “Non-Markovian reduced models to unravel transitions in non-equilibrium systems,” Phys. A: Math. Theor., vol. 58, no. 4, p. 045204, 2025. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad a7ad.
  45. [45]A. Novick-Cohen and R. L. Pego, “Stable patterns in a viscous diffusion equation,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 324, no. 1, pp. 331–351, 1991.
  46. [46]V. Padrón, “Effect of aggregation on population recovery modeled by a forward-backward pseudoparabolic equation,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 356, no. 7, pp. 2739–2756, 2004.DOI
  47. [47]M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.-C. Zhang, “Dynamic scaling of growing interfaces,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 56, no. 9, p. 889, 1986.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10033312
  48. [48]Y. Tu, G. Grinstein, and M. Munoz, “Systems with multiplicative noise: critical behavior from KPZ equation and numerics,” Physical review letters, vol. 78, no. 2, p. 274, 1997.DOI
  49. [49]I. Corwin, “The Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation and universality class,” Random matrices: Theory and applications, vol. 1, no. 01, p. 1130001, 2012.arxiv.org/abs/1106.1596
  50. [50]E. Gilad, J. von Hardenberg, A. Provenzale, M. Shachak, and E. Meron, “A mathematical model of plants as ecosystem engineers,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 244, no. 4, pp. 680–691, 2007.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17007886
  51. [51]E. Meron, “Pattern formation—a missing link in the study of ecosystem response to environmental changes,” Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 271, pp. 1–18, 2016.DOI
  52. [52]D. Tanaka and Y. Kuramoto, “Complex Ginzburg–Landau equation with nonlocal coupling,” Physical Review E, vol. 68, p. 026219, 2003.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14525096
  53. [53]K. Kawasaki, A. Mochizuki, M. Matsushita, T. Umeda, and N. Shigesada, “Modeling spatio-temporal patterns generated by Bacillus subtilis,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 177–185, 1997.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9379672
  54. [54]M. Dentz and B. Berkowitz, “Transport behavior of a passive solute in continuous time random walks and multirate mass transfer,” Water Resources Research, vol. 39, no. 5, p. 1111, 2003.DOI
  55. [55]N. Rostoker, “Fluctuations of a plasma (I),” Nuclear Fusion, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 101–120, 1961.DOI
  56. [56]R. J. Charlson, A. S. Ackerman, F. A.-M. Bender, T. L. Anderson, and Z. Liu, “On the climate forcing consequences of the albedo continuum between cloudy and clear air,” Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 715–727, 2007.
  57. [57]J. C. Caból, C. N. Long, J.-A. González, J. Augustine, and A. McComiskey, “The thin border between cloud and aerosol: Sensitivity of several ground based observation techniques,” Atmospheric Research, vol. 196, pp. 248–260, 2017.
  58. [58]T. Várnai and A. Marshak, “Satellite observations of cloud-related variations in aerosol properties,” Atmosphere, vol. 9, no. 11, p. 430, 2018.DOI
  59. [59]A. Marshak, S. Platnick, T. Várnai, G. Wen, and R. F. Cahalan, “Impact of three-dimensional radiative effects on satellite retrievals of cloud droplet sizes,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 111, no. D9, 2006.DOI
  60. [60]G. Wen, A. Marshak, R. F. Cahalan, L. A. Remer, and R. G. Kleidman, “3-D aerosol-cloud radiative interaction observed in collocated MODIS and ASTER images of cumulus cloud fields,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 112, no. D13, 2007.
  61. [61]R. Bar-Or, O. Altaratz, and I. Koren, “Global analysis of cloud field coverage and radiative properties, using morphological methods and mods observations,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 191–200, 2011.
  62. [62]C. H. Twohy, J. A. Coakley Jr, and W. R. Tahnk, “Effect of changes in relative humidity on aerosol scattering near clouds,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 114, no. D5, 2009.
  63. [63]U. Wollner, I. Koren, O. Altaratz, and L. A. Remer, “On the signature of the cirrus twilight zone,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 9, no. 9, p. 094010, 2014.DOI
  64. [64]R. R. Rogers and M. Yau, A Short Course in Cloud Physics. Pergamon Press Oxford, New York, 3rd ed., 1989.
  65. [65]M. Petters and S. Kreidenweis, “A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity,” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1961–1971, 2007.
  66. [66]F. Yang, H. F. Sadi, R. A. Shaw, F. Hoffmann, P. Hou, A. Wang, and M. Ovchinnikov, “Microphysics regimes due to haze-cloud interactions: cloud oscillation and cloud collapse,” EGUsphere, vol. 2024, pp. 1–28, 2024.DOI
  67. [67]H. R. Pruppacher and J. D. Klett, Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. Springer Dordrecht, 2010.
  68. [68]S. J. Ghan, C. C. Chung, and J. E. Penner, “A parameterization of cloud droplet nucleation part I: single aerosol type,” Atmospheric Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 198–221, 1993.DOI
  69. [69]A. N. Tikhonov, “Systems of differential equations containing small parameters in the derivatives,” Matematicheskii sbornik, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 575–586, 1957.
  70. [70]C. Kuehn, Multiple Time Scale Dynamics, vol. 191 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, 2015.DOI
  71. [71]Y. Sedunov, Physics of Drop Formation in the Atmosphere. John Wiley & Sons, 1974.DOI
  72. [73]M. B. Baker, R. E. Breidenthal, T. W. Choularton, and J. Latham, “The effects of turbulent mixing in clouds,” Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 299–304, 1984.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1984)041<0299:teotmi>2.0.co;2
  73. [74]J. Guckenheimer and P. Holmes, Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields, vol. 42. New-York Springer Verlag, 1983.
  74. [75]B. Birnir, The Kolmogorov-Obukhov Theory of Turbulence: A mathematical theory of turbulence. Springer Briefs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2013.
  75. [76]A. Schenzle and H. Brand, “Multiplicative stochastic processes in statistical physics,” Physical Review A, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 1628, 1979.
  76. [77]M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, “Pattern formation outside of equilibrium,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 851–1112, 1993.DOI
  77. [83]B. Oksendal, Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications. Springer Science and Business Media, 2013.
  78. [84]L. Arnold, Random Dynamical Systems. New York: Springer, 1998.
  79. [85]P. H. Baxendale and L. Goukassian, “Lyapunov exponents for small random perturbations of Hamiltonian systems,” Ann. Probab., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 101–134, 2002.DOI
  80. [86]A. J. Majda, I. Timofeyev, and E. Vanden-Eijnden, “A mathematical framework for stochastic climate models,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 891–974, 2001.DOI
  81. [87]C. L. E. Franzke, T. J. O’Kane, J. Berner, P. D. Williams, and V. Lucarini, “Stochastic climate theory and modeling,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 63–78, 2015.DOI
  82. [88]G. A. Gottwald and I. Melbourne, “Homogenization for deterministic maps and multiplicative noise,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 469, no. 2156, p. 20130201, 2013.DOI
  83. [89]G. A. Gottwald, D. T. Crommelin, and C. L. E. Franzke, “Stochastic climate theory,” in Nonlinear and Stochastic Climate Dynamics (C. L. E. Franzke and T. J. O’Kane, eds.), pp. 209–240, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  84. [90]D. Kondrashov, M. D. Chekroun, and M. Ghil, “Data-driven non-Markovian closure models,” Physica D., vol. 297, pp. 33–55, 2015.DOI
  85. [91]M. Santos-Gutiérrez, V. Lucarini, M. D. Chekroun, and M. Ghil, “Reduced-order models for coupled dynamical systems: Data-driven methods and the Koopman operator,” Chaos, vol. 31, no. 5, p. 053116, 2021.
  86. [92]T. G. Reisin, Z. Levin, and S. Tzivion, “Rain production in convective clouds as simulated in an axisymmetric model with detailed microphysics. part i: Description of the model,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 497–519, 1996.
  87. [93]U. C. Täuber, “Field-theory approaches to nonequilibrium dynamics,” in Ageing and the Glass Transition, pp. 295–348, Springer, 2007.DOI
  88. [94]C. Siewert, J. Bec, and G. Krstulovic, “Statistical steady state in turbulent droplet condensation,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 810, pp. 254–280, 2017.DOI
  89. [95]R. Stratonovich, “On a method of calculating quantum distribution functions,” in Soviet Physics Doklady, vol. 2, p. 416, 1957.
  90. [96]J. Hubbard, “Calculation of partition functions,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 77, 1959.DOI
  91. [97]K. Byczuk and P. Jakubczyk, “Generalized Gaussian integrals with application to the Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 840–846, 2023.DOI
  92. [98]M. Abramowitz, I. A. Stegun, and J. E. Romain, “Handbook of Mathematical Functions, with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables,” 1966.
  93. [99]M. D. Chekroun and N. E. Glatt-Holtz, “Invariant measures for dissipative dynamical systems: abstract results and applications,” Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 316, no. 3, pp. 723–761, 2012. M. D. Chekroun, F. Di Plinio, N. E. Glatt-Holtz, and V. Pata, “Asymptotics of the Coleman-Gurtin model,” Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 351–369, 2011.
  94. [101]R. E. Showalter and T. W. Ting, “Pseudoparabolic Partial Differential Equations,” SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 1970.DOI
  95. [102]R. W. Carroll and R. E. Showalter, Singular and Degenerate Cauchy Problems, vol. 127. Academic Press, 1977.
  96. [103]D. D. Joseph, M. Renardy, and J.-C. Saut, “Hyperbolicity and change of type in the flow of viscoelastic fluids,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 213–251, 1985.
  97. [104]B. D. Coleman and W. Noll, “An approximation theorem for functionals, with applications in continuum mechanics,” in The Foundations of Mechanics and Thermodynamics: Selected Papers, pp. 97–112, Springer, 1974.
  98. [105]R. Huilgol, “A second order fluid of the differential type,” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 471–482, 1968.DOI
  99. [106]T. W. Ting, “Certain non-steady flows of second-order fluids,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, vol. 14, pp. 1–26, 1963.DOI
  100. [107]Y.-H. Kuo and J. D. Neelin, “Conditions for Convective Deep Inflow,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 49, p. e2022GL100552, 2022.
  101. [108]Y.-H. Kuo and J. D. Neelin, “Anelastic Convective Entities. Part I: Formulation and Implication for Nighttime Convection,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 599–623, 2025.DOI
  102. [109]G. J. Lord, C. E. Powell, and T. Shardlow, An Introduction to Computational Stochastic PDEs, vol. 50 of Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.DOI
  103. [110]G. Fausti, M. E. Cates, and C. Nardini, “Statistical properties of microphase and bubbly phase-separated active fluids,” Physical Review E, vol. 110, no. 4, p. L042103, 2024.DOI
  104. [111]L. Middleton, J. M. Brown, and J. R. Taylor, “Reconciling layering mechanisms in double-diffusive and single-diffusive fluids,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 1019, p. R1, 2025.DOI
  105. [112]M. D. Chekroun, A. Tantet, H. Dijkstra, and J. D. Neelin, “Ruelle-Pollicott Resonances of Stochastic Systems in Reduced State Space, Part I: Theory,” J. Stat. Phys., vol. 179, pp. 1366–1402, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10955-020-02535-x.DOI
  106. [113]K. K. Chandrakar, W. Cantrell, K. Chang, D. Ciochetto, D. Niedermeyer, M. Ovchinnikov, R. A. Shaw, and F. Yang, “Aerosol indirect effect from turbulence-induced broadening of cloud-droplet size distributions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 50, pp. 14243–14248, 2016.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27911802
  107. [114]N. Rostoker and M. N. Rosenbluth, “Test particles in a completely ionized plasma,” The Physics of Fluids, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1960.DOI
  108. [115]T. Peter and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, “Energy loss of heavy ions in dense plasma. I. Linear and nonlinear Vlasov theory for the stopping power,” Physical Review A, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1998–2014, 1991.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9905242
  109. [116]J. Dai, Y. Hou, and J. Yuan, “Unified first principles description from warm dense matter to ideal ionized gas plasma: Electron-ion collisions induced friction,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 104, no. 24, p. 245001, 2010.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20867307
  110. [117]P. Mabey, S. Richardson, T. G. White, L. B. Fletcher, S. H. Glenzer, N. J. Hartley, J. Vorberger, D. O. Gericke, and G. Gregori, “A strong diffusive ion mode in dense ionized matter predicted by Langevin dynamics,” Nature Communications, vol. 8, p. 14125, 2017.DOI
  111. [118]G. E. Morfill and A. V. Ivlev, “Complex plasmas: An interdisciplinary research field,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 1353–1404, 2009.DOI
  112. [119]J. A. Krommes, “Fundamental statistical descriptions of plasma turbulence in magnetic fields,” Physics Reports, vol. 360, no. 1–4, pp. 1–352, 2002.
  113. [120]L. F. Cugliandolo and V. Lecomte, “Rules of calculus in the path integral representation of white noise Langevin equations: the Onsager–Machlup approach,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 50, no. 34, p. 345001, 2017.DOI
  114. [121]L. F. Cugliandolo, V. Lecomte, and F. van Wijland, “Building a path-integral calculus: a covariant discretization approach,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 52, no. 50, p. 50LT01, 2019.DOI
  115. [122]M. Santos Gutiérrez, M. D. Chekroun, and I. Koren, “Brownian models of (de)activation of polydisperse aerosols caused by turbulent fluctuations,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 633–652, 2026.

Paper details

vlnc:W_y2cn4qsf
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents