archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20250426022659/https://www.scien...

It's interesting how so many important papers are always on arxiv first. it makes me wonder what purpose peer reviews serves. I think also, this is to help establish priority over the result. So getting it up on arxiv is like a timestamp to avoid someone else deriving it at the same time and getting credit by having it published first.

The article does a wonderful job in providing context for the proof.

I really enjoyed the clear descriptions of the three scales.

There’s a Reddit thread that provides useful context to this, what it is and the scope: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/s/OD0Jy9Rdns

A talk on it by one of the authors

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/video/yu-deng-the-hilbert-s...

I couldn't get an idea of what they did from TFA because it explains they derived a continuum model from a particle model by considering the particle number going to infinity and their size going to zero... which sounds a bit like a continuum

Nice, but uniting Newtonian physics with Navier-Stokes equations is „easy“.

It is much more difficult to do the same and unite relativistic mechanics with relativistic fluid mechanics. The fact that in relativity you have to deal with particle creation and annihilation makes the issue much much harder, because particle number is not conserved and it is difficult to define probability densities if the particle number is not constant. And in addition each particle has its own proper time, so a standard phase space does‘t exist. It might well be that the idea of point-particles and relativity are in some sense incompatible even at the classical level.