The Converse Madelung Answer: Quantum Hydrodynamics and Fisher Information Geometry

J. R. Dunkley
(5th November 2025)
Abstract

We study irreversible response for coarse grained densities in Fisher-regularised quantum hydrodynamics, working within a local metriplectic framework. The state space, boundary class and a uniformly elliptic symmetric mobility GG are fixed once and for all, and all constructions take place in the weighted Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometry. Three instantaneous objects are singled out: the realised irreversible drift generated by GG, a cost-entropy inequality that links control cost to entropy production, and a curvature coercivity bound on the Fisher functional. All three are invariant under the addition of any reversible drift generated by an antisymmetric operator JJ satisfying a weighted Liouville constraint. Equality in the cost-entropy bound picks out a one dimensional irreversible ray, and a simple "equality dial" quantifies the reversible content of a given evolution. Assumptions are minimal, convex free energy, strictly positive densities, symmetric uniformly elliptic GG, and the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} tangent model. All identities are supported by operational diagnostics and reproducible code. Read together with the companion paper, the present results identify the dissipative metriplectic channel compatible with the same Fisher geometry and Wasserstein-Otto tangent. The combined picture gives a minimal reversible-irreversible split for Fisher-regularised quantum hydrodynamics: the reversible current is the Fisher selected Schrödinger flow, while the present work fixes the local irreversible geometry and its equality and curvature certificates. A final scalar Fisher sector shows that the same weighted operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and Fisher quadratic form support a log density potential with a controlled Newtonian limit and a simple coupling to the Madelung Hamilton-Jacobi equation, kept deliberately within a scalar, weak field regime. All claims are necessity statements inside the stated axioms; no uniqueness of GG or of the scalar dynamics is asserted beyond this local setting. The intended scope is quantum hydrodynamics and quantum information geometry for Fisher regularised Schrödinger dynamics with metriplectic dissipation.

Contents

1  Introduction

Previously, our work on The Converse Madelung Question [1] treated the reversible side of hydrodynamic evolution by classifying the canonical bracket on (ρ,S)(\rho,S), identifying the Fisher curvature that selects a linear unitary completion, and supplying operational verification within a minimal axiomatic class.

Here we provide the dissipative counterpart; again, in a specific axiomatic setting. We remain at the density level and characterise the no-work reversible cone via the weighted Liouville form without asserting a full Jacobi structure on densities.

We start with axioms that fix the state space and boundary classes, impose a local quadratic irreversible power with symmetric positive GG, and require a reversible class that performs no work on FF [2, 3, 4, 5]. Calculus on the space of densities is taken in the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} tangent of the Wasserstein-Otto geometry [6, 7, 8, 9].

Within this scope we ask how three natural scalars relate at a fixed state: the entropy production σ˙\dot{\sigma}, the smallest displacement curvature κmin\kappa_{\min}, and the minimal quadratic cost 𝒞min\mathcal{C}_{\min} to impress a given tangent vv.

We show a sharp cost-entropy inequality that becomes an equality exactly on the gradient flow ray selected by the axioms, a curvature coercivity estimate with constants governed only by ellipticity of GG and the positivity margin of ρ\rho, and invariance of these scalars under the addition of any reversible drift. These same objects later serve as instantaneous readers in the assembled reversible dissipative picture and in the Fisher scalar sector, where they control a weak-field Newtonian limit and a simple Madelung coupling.

These are necessity statements inside the axioms, not equivalences beyond them. We do not assert uniqueness of GG outside local ellipticity or any global identification across models.

Numerically we keep hypotheses visible through reproducible scripts. Instantaneous statements concern scalars defined at a fixed state ρ\rho; path-integrated checks (such as σ˙𝑑t=ΔF\int\dot{\sigma}\,dt=\Delta F) are sanity tests of the plumbing and are reported separately.

A code archive (Appendix F) certifies the equality case under refinement, checks conservative plumbing and no work, measures a coarse-graining commutator that follows an 2\ell^{2} law, and recovers the quadratic action of GG from probe Gram matrices.

Further testing adds an evolution variational inequality (EVI) probe with saturation on the irreversible ray, a Liouville no-work sweep, an Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} orthogonality readout, tomography of GG using scalar maps with cross-state checks, and a single-axiom failure table where symmetry, locality, positivity, or the tangent model is broken on purpose. Alignment identities report =cos2θ\mathcal{R}=\cos^{2}\theta and explain when near equalities are observed. Path-integrated entropy is tested against ΔF\Delta F and is insensitive to reversible drift at fixed targets.

Connections to thermodynamic geometry and optimal transport provide context for cost-entropy relations beyond linear response [12], and discrete or quantum analogues illustrate how changing the tangent model alters curvature-entropy structure [10, 11]. Our contribution is to place the dissipative assertions as necessities inside a minimal metriplectic setting with explicit certificates and falsifiers, complementing the reversible analysis of the companion paper and aligning the irreversible geometry with the Fisher structure that underlies the Schrödinger sector.

Later sections assemble the symmetric and antisymmetric blocks in a local setting and record simple operational checks, including a linear response reader obeying Kramers-Kronig within scope, a holonomy probe that is coarse-graining invariant on the tested family, and a Fisher scalar sector with a controlled Newtonian limit and a simple coupling to the Madelung dynamics.

All statements are necessity results within the stated axioms, ellipticity of GG, and the positivity margin of ρ\rho. We do not assert uniqueness of GG or JJ beyond this local metriplectic setting.

At a glance, the three statements above are witnessed by a sharp equality on the gradient-flow ray, a curvature floor on the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} unit sphere, and invariance under reversible JJ; see Propositions 2.2, 2.3 and Appendix G. For a quantum reader, the main role of the present paper is to fix the irreversible metric, geometry and diagnostics that are compatible with the Fisher-Schrödinger structure of the companion work, without changing the underlying information geometry.

Relation to the reversible study.

This work complements the reversible analysis developed in The Converse Madelung Question, which treated the canonical bracket on (ρ,S)(\rho,S) and the role of Fisher curvature in establishing linearity after complexification. Within the stated axioms that paper identifies the Fisher functional as the unique reversible regulariser that supports a linear Schrödinger completion; here we remain entirely within the dissipative channel, fixing the local metriplectic form of the irreversible power and isolating the equality and curvature relations that persist when the reversible content is stripped away. Read together, the two papers form a minimal reversible dissipative pair under the same information-geometric conventions, differing only in the sign structure of the generator. The Fisher scalar sector and its Madelung coupling in Sec. 7 are recorded as an example of an emergent scalar slice built from the same density, the same weighted operator, and the same Fisher quadratic forms. For clarity, the κ\kappa-fixing and factorised-data arguments belong entirely to the reversible companion study and are not revisited here.

1.1 Reader Roadmap

Road map Sections 2 and 3 establish the axioms, the cost-entropy inequality, curvature coercivity, and the metriplectic split on ρ\rho. Sections 4 and 5 give a didactic torus example together with numerical diagnostics (equality dial, coarse-grain commutator, reversible sweep), including typical failure modes when axioms are broken. Sections 6 and 7 assemble the irreversible sector with the reversible Fisher-Schrödinger structure developed in the companion paper. Section 7 presents optional scalar and analogues within the same information geometry.

1.2 Results at a glance

Within the stated axioms (local ellipticity of GG, positivity margin of ρ\rho, admissible boundaries), we record three instantaneous statements at a fixed state ρ\rho:

  1. 1.

    Cost-entropy inequality (equality on the gradient-flow ray). There is a sharp instantaneous inequality σ˙22PirrIF\dot{\sigma}^{2}\leq 2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}\,I_{F} that becomes an equality precisely on the gradient-flow direction selected by the axioms (Sec. 3.1).

  2. 2.

    Curvature coercivity on the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} unit sphere. The Hessian is controlled below by a curvature constant whose size depends only on ellipticity of GG and the positivity margin of ρ\rho (Sec. 3.2).

  3. 3.

    Reversible invariance. All three scalars above are invariant under adding any reversible JJ with the Liouville property (Sec. 2.4).

Falsifiers in Sec. G show that these identities fail once the geometry is altered (for example changing GG or the boundary class).

Object Role Where
Cost-entropy scalar Sharp inequality; equality on gradient-flow ray Sec. 3.1
Curvature constant Coercive Hessian bound on Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} unit sphere Sec. 3.2
Reversible invariants Unchanged under adding any Liouville JJ Sec. 2.4
Operator summary Weighted Poisson operators. Lρφ:=(ρφ),Lρ,Gφ:=(ρGφ),L_{\rho}\varphi:=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\varphi),\qquad L_{\rho,G}\varphi:=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\varphi), defining the weighted Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} and Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometries. Mobilities. GG is the symmetric, positive definite mobility of the irreversible sector; JJ is the antisymmetric mobility of the reversible sector, required to satisfy the weighted Liouville constraint i(ρJij)=0\nabla_{i}(\rho J^{ij})=0. Complex packaging. K=G+iJK=G+iJ is a bookkeeping device for diagnostics involving orthogonal quadratures; it is not a new dynamical operator. Skew diagnostic map. HH is a fixed skew map used only in the complex-phase diagnostic MM. Chemical potential. The free energy FF induces a chemical potential μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho. All irreversible dynamics are generated by Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} acting on μ\mu.

2  Axioms, setting, and necessity results

Notation and orientation

ρ\rho density with ρ>0\rho>0 on the domain, normalised to mass 11
F[ρ]F[\rho] free energy; FF_{\infty} its minimiser value under the stated boundary class
G(ρ,x)G(\rho,x) symmetric positive definite mobility (local, elliptic with fixed bounds)
J(ρ,x)J(\rho,x) reversible operator with Liouville property (mass preserving)
LρϕL_{\rho}\phi (ρϕ)-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi)
Lρ,GϕL_{\rho,G}\phi (ρGϕ)-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\phi)
u,vHρ1\langle u,v\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}} inner product induced by Lρ1L_{\rho}^{-1} on zero-mean fields
σ˙\dot{\sigma} instantaneous entropy production

We work on the periodic box 𝕋L\mathbb{T}_{L} (or the stated admissible boundary class), with ρ\rho bounded away from zero and GG uniformly elliptic. All operators and norms are taken with respect to this setting.

Weighted Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} pairing.

Given a conservative field vv with zero mean, let ϕ\phi solve the Poisson problem Lρϕ=vL_{\rho}\phi=-\,v with mean-zero gauge. For ww with potential ψ\psi defined likewise, set

v,wHρ1:=Ωρϕψdx,vHρ12=v,vHρ1.\langle v,w\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}\;:=\;\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\psi\,dx,\qquad\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2}\;=\;\langle v,v\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}.

At a fixed state, define σ˙(ρ)Ωρ(μ)G(μ)𝑑x\dot{\sigma}(\rho)\equiv\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\mu)\,dx. For the realised irreversible direction virr=Lρ,Gμv_{\mathrm{irr}}=-L_{\rho,G}\mu, one then has σ˙(ρ)=virr,μ\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=-\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\mu\rangle.

We work on a domain and regularity class that preserves conservative form and makes all variational statements precise. The irreversible closure and the reversible class are then derived as necessities from a short axiom list, with scalar certificates that are reproduced by the code archive in Appendix F. Boundary, coarse-graining, and no-work details are documented in Appendix A.

Regularity.

The core metriplectic results of Sections 2-3 require only ρH1\rho\in H^{1} with a positive margin and a bounded, uniformly elliptic GG. Some asymptotic and commutator expansions in Appendix C assume additional smoothness (e.g. ρH3\rho\in H^{3} and GC1G\in C^{1}) and should be viewed as diagnostics within that smoother subclass.

Positivity.

Strict positivity of ρ\rho is treated as a standing hypothesis on the solution class. We do not attempt to prove positivity preservation for arbitrary free energies FF and mobilities GG; when the margin ρmin\rho_{\min} collapses the Fisher geometry and the associated diagnostics are explicitly out of scope.

2.1 State space, free energy, and boundary classes

Let Ωd\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} be either a periodic box or a bounded Lipschitz domain with outward unit normal nn. We consider strictly positive densities

ρH1(Ω),ρminessinfΩρε>0,Ωρ𝑑x=M>0,\rho\in H^{1}(\Omega),\qquad\rho_{\min}\equiv\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\Omega}\rho\geq\varepsilon>0,\qquad\int_{\Omega}\rho\,dx=M>0,

with boundary classes:

  • periodic, or

  • no-flux jn=0j\cdot n=0 for the physical flux jj,

as detailed in Appendix  A. The free energy F[ρ]F[\rho] is Fréchet differentiable on the positive cone and defines a chemical potential

μ(ρ)δFδρup to an additive constant.\mu(\rho)\equiv\frac{\delta F}{\delta\rho}\quad\text{up to an additive constant.}

Only μ\nabla\mu enters the dynamics and power balances. The weighted Poisson operator ρϕ=(ρϕ)\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi) is symmetric, coercive on mean-zero H1H^{1} functions, and induces the weighted Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} pairing; see Appendix  A.

All Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) relations are written with negative sign in front of operator and are solved on the mean-zero subspace.

We denote the ellipticity window of GG by 0<γminξG(ρ,x)ξγmax0<\gamma_{\min}\leq\xi^{\!\top}G(\rho,x)\xi\leq\gamma_{\max} and write κmin(ρ)\kappa_{\min}(\rho) for the smallest Wasserstein displacement curvature at ρ\rho; these constants appear in all bounds below.

We fix the weighted operator by Lρ,Gϕ(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\equiv-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\nabla\phi), so the gradient-flow ray is v0=Lρ,Gμ=(ρGμ)v_{0}=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\nabla\mu). All KKT solves are written with a leading minus and carried out on the mean-zero subspace.

2.2 Minimal axioms

We adopt the following minimal hypotheses.

A1 State and mass.

The state is ρH1(Ω)\rho\in H^{1}(\Omega) with ρminε>0\rho_{\min}\geq\varepsilon>0 and the evolution is conservative,

tρ=j,Ωtρdx=0,\partial_{t}\rho\;=\;-\,\nabla\!\cdot j,\qquad\int_{\Omega}\partial_{t}\rho\,dx=0,

within the boundary classes of Section 2.1.

A2 Free energy and Lyapunov sign.

There is a free energy F[ρ]F[\rho] with μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho such that along the irreversible channel F˙0\dot{F}\leq 0.

A3 Local quadratic dissipation.

At fixed state ρ\rho, the instantaneous irreversible power is a local quadratic form in the driving gradient,

Pirr(ρ;μ)=12Ωρ(μ)G(ρ,x)(μ)𝑑x,P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu)\;=\;\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)\cdot G(\rho,x)\,(\nabla\mu)\,dx,

with G(ρ,x)G(\rho,x) bounded, symmetric, and strictly positive definite pointwise. No nonlocal kernels appear in PirrP_{\mathrm{irr}}.

A4 Probe locality and relabelling invariance.

Small probe variations of μ\mu are local and insensitive to smooth relabellings of coordinates within a homogeneous medium. In particular, the quadratic response that defines GG is invariant under rigid translations and rotations on the periodic box.

A5 Steepest descent.

Among all conservative directions v=jv=-\nabla\!\cdot j that achieve the same PirrP_{\mathrm{irr}} at fixed ρ\rho, the realised irreversible direction maximises the instantaneous entropy production σ˙=v,μ\dot{\sigma}=-\langle v,\mu\rangle. Equivalently, the realised flux is the KKT minimiser of power subject to the continuity constraint.

A6 Reversible no-work.

The reversible channel performs no-work on FF for any smooth μ\mu, that is Prev(ρ;μ)=Ωμtρ|revdx=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho;\mu)=\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\partial_{t}\rho\big|_{\mathrm{rev}}\,dx=0.

{remarkbox}
Remark (Scope test for A6).

A nonzero reversible power Prev0P_{\mathrm{rev}}\neq 0 places a run outside the no-work cone at the current ρ\rho. Within our scope, Prev=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}=0 holds if and only if the reversible class admits J=JJ^{\top}=-J and the weighted Liouville identity (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0. Instantaneous violations of the dial reflect a break of antisymmetry or of the weighted Liouville constraint, not a contradiction with the canonical bracket used in the companion reversible paper.

A7 Symmetries and boundary class.

All statements are scoped to the boundary classes in Section 2.1. Any symmetry is within those classes only.

2.3 Necessity of the irreversible generator

The axioms above force the weighted H1H^{-1} geometry and the Onsager direction.

Proposition 2.1 (Weighted H1H^{-1} tangent and identifiability).

Under A1-A4, any conservative direction vv at fixed ρ\rho can be uniquely represented as v=(ρϕ)v=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,\nabla\phi). The power PirrP_{\mathrm{irr}} induces the norm

vG,ρ2=Ωρ(ϕ)G(ρ,x)(ϕ)𝑑x,\|v\|_{G,\rho}^{2}\;=\;\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\phi)\cdot G(\rho,x)\,(\nabla\phi)\,dx,

which is equivalent to the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} norm. Moreover, GG is identifiable from small probe responses by the Gram matrix Bij=Ωρ(ϕi)G(ϕj)𝑑xB_{ij}=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\phi_{i})\cdot G\,(\nabla\phi_{j})\,dx on any separating set of probe potentials {ϕi}\{\phi_{i}\}.

Proposition 2.2 (Onsager steepest descent and equality case).

Under A1-A5, the unique irreversible direction at ρ\rho is

virr=(ρG(ρ,x)μ(ρ)).v_{\mathrm{irr}}\;=\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,G(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu(\rho)\big).

It realises the sharp Cauchy-Schwarz equality

virr,μ2= 2Pirr(ρ;μ)σ˙(ρ),\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\mu\rangle^{2}\;=\;2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho), (2.1)

with σ˙(ρ)=Ωρ(μ)G(μ)𝑑x0\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\mu)\,dx\geq 0. Any other conservative direction with the same power yields a strict inequality.

Comment. Equation (2.1) provides a scalar certificate that is reproduced in the code archive by a mesh refinement study with dealiased products and subspace-consistent pairings.

Alternatives that violate A3 or A5 break (2.1). See Section G and Appendix  A. In the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) metric this certificate is the identity (ρ;virr)=cos2θρ,G=1\mathcal{R}(\rho;v_{\mathrm{irr}})=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}=1 with \mathcal{R} and θρ,G\theta_{\rho,G} defined in Lemma 3.4.

2.4 Reversible no-work and orthogonality

Reader’s map for A6. (i) The no-work cone is characterised by J=JJ^{\top}=-J and (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0 at the fixed ρ\rho. (ii) Along reversible trajectories FF is constant and the reversible class is Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho}-orthogonal to the irreversible cone. (iii) The instantaneous scalars σ˙(ρ)\dot{\sigma}(\rho), κmin(ρ)\kappa_{\min}(\rho), and 𝒞min(ρ;v)\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v) are insensitive to JJ by definition at fixed ρ\rho.

A6 fixes the structure of the reversible class and its orthogonality to the irreversible cone.

Proposition 2.3 (Weighted Liouville form and no-work).

Under A6, the reversible flux can be written as

jrev=ρJ(ρ,x)μ,j_{\mathrm{rev}}\;=\;-\,\rho\,J(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu,

with J=JJ^{\top}=-J and the weighted Liouville identity (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0. Conversely, these two conditions imply Prev(ρ;μ)=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho;\mu)=0 for all smooth μ\mu and any choice of constant gauge. See Appendix B.

Proposition 2.4 (Metriplectic orthogonality).

Let virrv_{\mathrm{irr}} be as in Proposition 2.2 and vrev=(ρJμ)v_{\mathrm{rev}}=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu) satisfy Proposition 2.3. Then

vrev,virrHρ1= 0,equivalently vrev,ϕ=0 for any ϕ with Lρϕ=virr.\langle v_{\mathrm{rev}},v_{\mathrm{irr}}\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}\;=\;0,\quad\text{equivalently }\langle v_{\mathrm{rev}},\phi\rangle=0\text{ for any }\phi\text{ with }-\,L_{\rho}\phi=v_{\mathrm{irr}}.

Thus the reversible class lies in the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} orthogonal complement of the irreversible cone. In particular, FF is constant along reversible trajectories and strictly decreases along irreversible ones unless μ0\nabla\mu\equiv 0.

2.5 Consequence

Theorem 2.5 (Local metriplectic decomposition).

In our axiomatic setting, the evolution of ρ\rho admits a unique decomposition

tρ=(ρG(ρ,x)μ)+(ρJ(ρ,x)μ),\partial_{t}\rho\;=\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,G(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu\big)\;+\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu\big),

where G=G0G=G^{\top}\succ 0 is local, J=JJ^{\top}=-J satisfies (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0, the equality certificate (2.1) holds on the irreversible channel, and the reversible channel has Prev=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}=0 and is Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho}-orthogonal to the irreversible cone. The pair (G,J)(G,J) is identifiable up to scalar invariants on the irreversible side and up to the Liouville gauge on the reversible side.

{remarkbox}
Remark (Vanishing of the reversible density current).

Under the hypotheses of Theorem 2.5, the reversible contribution to tρ\partial_{t}\rho is identically zero:

(ρJμ)=(i(ρJij))= 0(weighted Liouville)jμ+ρJijijμ= 0(antisym × sym)= 0,\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu\big)\;=\;\underbrace{\big(\nabla_{i}(\rho J^{ij})\big)}_{=\,0\;\text{(weighted Liouville)}}\partial_{j}\mu\;+\;\rho\,\underbrace{J^{ij}\,\partial_{i}\partial_{j}\mu}_{=\,0\;\text{(antisym $\times$ sym)}}\;=\;0,

for every smooth μ\mu. Hence the metriplectic decomposition on ρ\rho alone reduces to the irreversible channel tρ=(ρGμ)\partial_{t}\rho=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\nabla\mu). The JJ-structure enters by constraining the form of the reversible class (antisymmetry, weighted Liouville) and by ensuring algebraic compatibility with the no-work and orthogonality certificates, but its action on ρ\rho through the free-energy chemical potential is trivially zero. Nontrivial reversible evolution of ρ\rho requires the full (ρ,S)(\rho,S) phase space developed in the companion paper [1], where the Hamilton–Jacobi equation for SS couples back to the continuity equation.

For clarity, the minimal implications of these axioms and short constructive proofs of necessity are summarised in Appendix D.

3  Main statements and proof routes

Proof sketches and the logical dependency chain from the axioms to the statements below are given in Appendix D.

We now record three statements. Each uses only the hypotheses in Section 2. Proof sketches are given immediately, with full details deferred to Appendix E. Alignment diagnostics and falsifiers appear later in Sections 6 and 7.

3.1 Cost-entropy inequality (equality on the gradient-flow ray)

Proposition 3.1 (Cost-entropy inequality; equality on the gradient-flow ray).

For any admissible uu with v=(ρu)v=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho u) one has

v,μ22𝒞(u)σ˙(ρ),\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}\leq 2\,\mathcal{C}(u)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho), (3.1)

hence

𝒞min(ρ;v)v,μ22σ˙(ρ).\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)\geq\frac{\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}}{2\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho)}. (3.2)

Equality holds if and only if uu is collinear with GμG\nabla\mu, equivalently vv is collinear with the gradient-flow direction Lρ,Gμ-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu where Lρ,Gϕ(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\equiv-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\phi).

Idea of proof.

Integration by parts gives v,μ=ρuμdx=u,G1Gμρ\langle v,\mu\rangle=-\int\rho\,u\cdot\nabla\mu\,dx=\langle u,G^{-1}G\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho}. Apply Cauchy-Schwarz in the G1G^{-1} metric to obtain (3.1). Minimise over uu to obtain (3.2). Equality holds exactly when uu is everywhere collinear with GμG\nabla\mu. Full details are standard and included in Appendix A. ∎

3.2 Curvature coercivity on the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} unit sphere

For all vv in the Wasserstein tangent,

F(ρ)v,vκmin(ρ)vHρ12.\langle\mathcal{H}_{F}(\rho)\,v,\,v\rangle\geq\kappa_{\min}(\rho)\,\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2}. (3.3)
Corollary 3.2 .

By ellipticity, 2𝒞min(ρ;v)[γmin,γmax]vHρ122\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)\in[\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}]\,\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2}, hence

F(ρ)v,vκmin(ρ)γmax2𝒞min(ρ;v).\langle\mathcal{H}_{F}(\rho)\,v,\,v\rangle\ \geq\ \frac{\kappa_{\min}(\rho)}{\gamma_{\max}}\cdot 2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v).

Section G shows that near uniformity the measured relaxation rates satisfy rfit2κminr_{\mathrm{fit}}\approx 2\,\kappa_{\min}, consistent with the log-Sobolev and mode-wise curvature anchors used here.

The Rayleigh quotient definition of κmin\kappa_{\min} gives the theorem. The corollary follows from the norm equivalence between the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) energy and the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} norm with constants γmin,γmax\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}. Details are given in Appendix.

{remarkbox}
Remark (Two load-bearing hypotheses).

If GG is not symmetric positive, the metric Cauchy-Schwarz used in (3.1) is invalid and (ρ;v)\mathcal{R}(\rho;v) can exceed one for some vv at fixed ρ\rho. If the tangent norm is not the weighted Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} norm, the Rayleigh structure that yields (3.3) can fail. Both failures are demonstrated by the falsifier dials.

3.3 Invariance under reversible drift

Proposition 3.3 (Instantaneous invariance under JJ).

For fixed ρ\rho, the scalars σ˙(ρ)\dot{\sigma}(\rho), κmin(ρ)\kappa_{\min}(\rho) and 𝒞min(ρ;v)\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v) depend only on (ρ,G,F)(\rho,G,F) and are unchanged by adding any antisymmetric JJ to the instantaneous splitting (2.5).

Proof.

Each scalar is defined at the fixed state using only the symmetric quadratic forms and the Wasserstein tangent. The reversible drift does not enter their definitions. ∎

3.4 Alignment and near-equalities

The inequality in Proposition 3.1 becomes an equality when vv is exactly collinear with Lρ,Gμ-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu. In practice near-equalities are observed when vv has a small angle with this direction in the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} inner product, or when the soft curvature mode aligns with Lρ,Gμ-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu. We quantify this below.

Lemma 3.4 (Alignment identity in the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) metric).

Let ϕ\phi solve Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v with Lρ,Gϕ(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\equiv-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\phi). Define the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) inner product on vector fields by

a,bρ,GΩρaGb𝑑x,aρ,G2=a,aρ,G,\langle a,b\rangle_{\rho,G}\equiv\int_{\Omega}\rho\,a^{\!\top}G\,b\,dx,\quad\|a\|_{\rho,G}^{2}=\langle a,a\rangle_{\rho,G},

and the angle

cosθρ,Gϕ,μρ,Gϕρ,Gμρ,G.\cos\theta_{\rho,G}\equiv\frac{\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}}{\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}\,\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}}\,.

Then the diagnostic ratio satisfies the exact identity

(ρ;v)v,μ22𝒞min(ρ;v)σ˙(ρ)=cos2θρ,G[0,1],\mathcal{R}(\rho;v)\equiv\frac{\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}}{2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho)}=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}\in[0,1],

with =1\mathcal{R}=1 iff ϕ\nabla\phi is collinear with μ\nabla\mu (equivalently uGμu^{\star}\parallel G\nabla\mu).

Proof.

For the minimiser u=Gϕu^{\star}=G\nabla\phi (KKT) one has

v,μ=Ωρuμdx=ϕ,μρ,G.\langle v,\mu\rangle=-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,u^{\star}\!\cdot\nabla\mu\,dx=-\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}.

Moreover, 2𝒞min(ρ;v)=ϕρ,G22\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)=\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}^{2} and σ˙(ρ)=μρ,G2\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}^{2}. Hence

(ρ;v)=ϕ,μρ,G2ϕρ,G2μρ,G2=cos2θρ,G.\mathcal{R}(\rho;v)=\frac{\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}^{2}}{\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}^{2}\,\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}^{2}}=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}.

{remarkbox}
Remark (Intuition for Lemma 3.4).

The KKT map vϕv\mapsto\phi solves Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v, so u=Gϕu^{\star}=G\nabla\phi is the unique minimal control. In the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) inner product one has 2𝒞min(ρ;v)=ϕρ,G22\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)=\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}^{2} and σ˙(ρ)=μρ,G2\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}^{2}, while the power pairing is v,μ=ϕ,μρ,G\langle v,\mu\rangle=-\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}.

The diagnostic ratio therefore becomes a squared cosine between the two vectors ϕ\nabla\phi and μ\nabla\mu in the same metric, with equality if and only if they are collinear. Near-equalities occur when the minimal control direction aligns with the thermodynamic force, equivalently when vv is close to the gradient flow ray Lρ,Gμ-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu.

Alignment diagnostic.

Let Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v on the mean-zero subspace. Define

cosθρ,G:=ϕ,μρ,Gϕρ,Gμρ,G,R:=cos2θρ,G[0,1].\cos\theta_{\rho,G}:=\frac{\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}}{\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}\,\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}},\qquad R:=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}\in[0,1].

Thus RR is obtained from one Poisson solve and two inner products; near-equality events appear as R1R\approx 1.

3.5 Didactic worked example on a torus

We illustrate constants in a simple model that matches common numerical experiments.

Proposition 3.5 (Smallest curvature for a uniform state).

Let Ω=𝕋d\Omega=\mathbb{T}^{d} with period 2π2\pi in each direction, G=IG=I, and F[ρ]=ρlogρdx+λ2|ρ|2𝑑xF[\rho]=\int\rho\log\rho\,dx+\frac{\lambda}{2}\int|\nabla\rho|^{2}\,dx. At a uniform state ρρ0>0\rho\equiv\rho_{0}>0 the curvature spectrum by Fourier mode kd{0}k\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}\setminus\{0\} is

κ(k)=|k|2+λρ0|k|4,\kappa(k)=|k|^{2}+\lambda\,\rho_{0}\,|k|^{4},

hence κmin(ρ0)=1+λρ0\kappa_{\min}(\rho_{0})=1+\lambda\rho_{0} attained at the first nonzero shell |k|=1|k|=1.

Idea of proof.

On the Hρ01H^{-1}_{\rho_{0}} tangent, κ(k)\kappa(k) is the Rayleigh quotient κ(k)=HF(ρ0)vk,vk/vkHρ012\kappa(k)=\langle H_{F}(\rho_{0})v_{k},v_{k}\rangle/\|v_{k}\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho_{0}}}^{2} for vk=(ρ0ϕk)v_{k}=-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho_{0}\nabla\phi_{k}) with ϕk(x)=cos(kx)\phi_{k}(x)=\cos(k\!\cdot\!x) or sin(kx)\sin(k\!\cdot\!x). At ρ=ρ0\rho=\rho_{0}, a first variation gives δμ=ρ1/ρ0λΔρ1\delta\mu=\rho_{1}/\rho_{0}-\lambda\,\Delta\rho_{1}, yielding the stated eigenvalues.

The entropy part gives |k|2|k|^{2} and the Fisher part produces λρ0|k|4\lambda\rho_{0}|k|^{4}. ∎

{remarkbox}
Remark.

Proposition 3.5 provides a clean anchor for curvature scales in numerical plots. On a side-length LL torus, replace |k|2|k|^{2} by (2π/L)2|k|2(2\pi/L)^{2}|k|^{2} and |k|4|k|^{4} by (2π/L)4|k|4(2\pi/L)^{4}|k|^{4}, so κmin(ρ0)=(2π/L)2+λρ0(2π/L)4\kappa_{\min}(\rho_{0})=(2\pi/L)^{2}+\lambda\,\rho_{0}\,(2\pi/L)^{4} on the first shell. The angle envelope diagnostic R=cos2θR=\cos^{2}\theta is used below to compare measured directions with this spectrum. We draw the reference line κmin(ρ0)=1+λρ0\kappa_{\min}(\rho_{0})=1+\lambda\rho_{0}; measured points collapse to this line as |ρρ0|/ρ00|\rho-\rho_{0}|/\rho_{0}\to 0.

4  Scope, guardrails, and failure modes

This section records short analytic sketches that explain where the statements hold and where they do not, together with explicit caveats.

4.1 Non-convex free energy

If FF is not convex, the smallest Wasserstein Hessian eigenvalue can be negative and the coercivity bound (3.3) fails. This is a true limitation with our setting. In many models convexity or displacement convexity is available on relevant subsets [8, 9]. Our results do not extend beyond convex settings. For example, with F[ρ]=(ρlogρaρ2)𝑑x+λ2|ρ|2𝑑xF[\rho]=\int(\rho\log\rho-a\,\rho^{2})\,dx+\tfrac{\lambda}{2}\int|\nabla\rho|^{2}dx, the smallest Wasserstein Hessian eigenvalue becomes negative for sufficiently large aa, so the Rayleigh coercivity fails.

4.2 Invariant under reversible drift

We include a coupled channel plumbing check with J0J\neq 0 in the evolution that generates the flow snapshots. The instantaneous scalars are always evaluated at a fixed state and depend only on (ρ,G,F)(\rho,G,F), so they are unchanged by JJ as Proposition 3.3 states. The numerical runs confirm this invariance. This test is labelled as a sanity check of the pipeline rather than as a validation of the main inequalities. See the weighted Liouville identity below and Appendix G, "Path-entropy invariance under reversible drift", for the algebraic condition and a direct numerical check.

4.3 Strongly nonlocal functionals

If the second variation of FF acts as a strongly nonlocal operator on the Wasserstein tangent, the Rayleigh quotient structure that defines κmin\kappa_{\min} can be altered. We do not treat such cases here. Alternative transport geometries are an active topic and include variants such as Hellinger Kantorovich; see for instance [8] for background pointers. Our falsifier B illustrates that even a simple change of tangent norm breaks the intended chain. Concretely, if the second variation is a pseudo-differential operator of negative order or is unbounded on the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} tangent, the minimiser of the Rayleigh quotient need not be representable as v=Lρ,Gϕv=-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi, and the κmin\kappa_{\min} link breaks; see Appendix G, "Wrong tangent norm."

4.4 Degenerate metrics and loss of ellipticity

If GG loses ellipticity, the constants in our inequalities blow up and the numerical operators lose conditioning. This is consistent with the role of symmetric positive Onsager operators in GENERIC and metriplectic evolutions [2, 3, 4, 5]. Our estimates require uniform bounds 0<γminξGξγmax<0<\gamma_{\min}\leq\xi^{\top}G\xi\leq\gamma_{\max}<\infty. In practice we report the associated rise in KKT iteration counts as γmax/γmin\gamma_{\max}/\gamma_{\min} grows, to calibrate conditioning.

4.5 Nodes and vanishing density

If ρmin0\rho_{\min}\to 0 then the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} norm degenerates and integrations by parts need additional care. In the reversible setting this is discussed in the context of hydrodynamic variables and Fisher curvature in [1]. Here we keep a fixed positivity margin and report the degradation of constants as a function of ρmin\rho_{\min}. Uniqueness of the mean-zero KKT potential also fails in this limit, so orthogonality claims are interpreted only on the positive cone.

Falsifiers are not confirmations of algebra; they show that the identities fail once the geometry is altered. This mirrors the falsifier philosophy used for reversible uniqueness and superposition in The Converse Madelung Question [1].

4.6 Metric symmetry break

We perturb the metric by a small antisymmetric component Gε=G+AεG_{\varepsilon}=G+A_{\varepsilon} with Aε=AεA_{\varepsilon}^{\top}=-A_{\varepsilon}, while keeping all other steps unchanged. Since GεG_{\varepsilon} is no longer symmetric positive, the metric Cauchy Schwarz that underpins (3.1) is invalid. Numerically we observe that for fixed states and random admissible vv, the ratio (ρ;v)\mathcal{R}(\rho;v) exceeds one for some samples once ε\varepsilon passes a small threshold. This falsifies the symmetric positive hypothesis and demonstrates that metric symmetry is load-bearing rather than decorative. Theoretical background for metric positivity in gradient flows and GENERIC is classical [2, 3, 4, 5].

Weighted Liouville identity.

If J=JJ^{\top}=-J and (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0, then for any smooth state

Ωμ(ρJμ)𝑑x=Ωρ(μ)Jμdx=0.\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu)\,dx=-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}J\,\nabla\mu\,dx=0.

We record this as a convenient sufficient condition ensuring the reversible flux performs no-work on FF.

4.7 Wrong tangent norm

We replace the Wasserstein tangent norm Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} by a massless H1H^{-1} norm, that is we solve Δϕ=v-\Delta\phi=v without the ρ\rho weight and evaluate quadratic forms accordingly. The Rayleigh structure that yields (E.1) is then lost, and we observe consistent violations of the curvature coercivity bound (3.3) on the same states. This aligns with the role of the Otto metric in displacement convexity and curvature lower bounds [6, 7, 8, 9]. Empirically we observe violations on a non-zero fraction of random admissible states; a representative counterexample and script are listed in Appendix G. Discrete and quantum analogues underscore that the correct tangent model is essential for entropy curvature relations [10, 11].

4.8 Positivity margin degradation

We lower the positivity margin by shrinking ρmin\rho_{\min} while keeping the same discrete operators. The constants in our estimates depend on ρmin\rho_{\min} through coercivity. Numerically the fitted bounds degrade in line with the predicted dependence and the solvers require more iterations to meet the same residual tolerance. This is expected and is reported explicitly so that readers can calibrate conditioning. We print iteration counts alongside bound fits so readers can see this dependence.

Spatially varying mobility G(x)G(x)

Setting. We repeated the commuting-triangle and κ\kappa-oracle tests with spatially varying mobility G(x)=1+αcos(2πx/L)G(x)=1+\alpha\cos(2\pi x/L) for α[0,0.8]\alpha\in[0,0.8]. At fixed ρ\rho and λ=0.10\lambda=0.10, we measured R=v,μ2/(2Cminσ˙)R=\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}/(2C_{\min}\dot{\sigma}) and cos2θ\cos^{2}\theta for (i) the gradient-flow ray v=Lρ,Gμv=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu and (ii) a random admissible vv.

At uniform ρ0=1/L\rho_{0}=1/L we also checked the mode oracle κ(k)\kappa(k). Observation. For all α\alpha, the equality case 1R2×1041-R\simeq 2\times 10^{-4} on the ray and |Rcos2θ|1012|R-\cos^{2}\theta|\lesssim 10^{-12} for random vv persist, with solver residuals O(1012)O(10^{-12}). The κ\kappa-oracle remains exact to machine precision for k=1,2,3k=1,2,3, independent of α\alpha.

Interpretation. Within the stated tolerances, the commuting-triangle equality and the mode curvature κ(k)=(2π/L)2|k|2+λρ0(2π/L)4|k|4\kappa(k)=(2\pi/L)^{2}|k|^{2}+\lambda\,\rho_{0}\,(2\pi/L)^{4}|k|^{4} remain unchanged under moderate inhomogeneity of the mobility; in particular, the first-shell value κmin=(2π/L)2+λρ0(2π/L)4\kappa_{\min}=(2\pi/L)^{2}+\lambda\,\rho_{0}\,(2\pi/L)^{4} is unaffected by α\alpha.

This indicates that the numerical and analytical structure of the metric are stable for non-uniform media, without asserting further generality.

4.9 What is not claimed

We do not claim necessity or uniqueness of the metriplectic structure, nor do we derive GG or the tangent norm from minimal axioms. We also do not assert universal proportionality between any pair of the three scalars. We prove a sharp identity on one ray, two global inequalities with controlled constants, and structural invariance under reversible drift, all within the stated hypotheses.

Brief consistency checks

The following three items report compact, theory-facing verifications that extend the identities used in the paper. They are framed at the level of definitions and measurable scalars. No new claims are made beyond those already proved. Each item states hypotheses, objects evaluated, the equality or invariance that is expected to hold, and the observed tolerance levels under a representative discretisation on the periodic one-dimensional torus 𝕋L\mathbb{T}_{L}.

A. Internal multiplet (two components).

Setting. Let ρ=(ρ1,ρ2)\rho=(\rho_{1},\rho_{2}) be two strictly positive components with 𝕋L(ρ1+ρ2)𝑑x=1\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}(\rho_{1}+\rho_{2})\,dx=1. Take

F[ρ]=i=12𝕋Lρilogρidx+λ2i=12𝕋L|xρi|2𝑑x,μi=δFδρi.F[\rho]\;=\;\sum_{i=1}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}\rho_{i}\log\rho_{i}\,dx\;+\;\frac{\lambda}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}|\partial_{x}\rho_{i}|^{2}\,dx,\qquad\mu_{i}\;=\;\frac{\delta F}{\delta\rho_{i}}\,.

Let GG be the scalar mobility G=IdG=\mathrm{Id} acting componentwise and define the symmetric operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} by

Lρ,Gϕ=(x(ρ1xϕ1),x(ρ2xϕ2))L_{\rho,G}\phi\;=\;-\,\bigl(\partial_{x}(\rho_{1}\,\partial_{x}\phi_{1}),\,\partial_{x}(\rho_{2}\,\partial_{x}\phi_{2})\bigr)\,

restricted to the mean-zero subspace.

For any admissible tangent v=(v1,v2)v=(v_{1},v_{2}) with vi𝑑x=0\int v_{i}\,dx=0 define the minimal control cost via the KKT problem Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v,

2Cmin(ρ;v)=i=12𝕋Lρi|xϕi|2𝑑xσ˙(ρ)=i=12𝕋Lρi|xμi|2𝑑x2\,C_{\min}(\rho;v)\;=\;\sum_{i=1}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}\rho_{i}\,|\partial_{x}\phi_{i}|^{2}\,dx\,\qquad\dot{\sigma}(\rho)\;=\;\sum_{i=1}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}\rho_{i}\,|\partial_{x}\mu_{i}|^{2}\,dx\,

and the commuting angle by

cosθ=iρixϕixμidx(iρi|xϕi|2𝑑x)1/2(iρi|xμi|2𝑑x)1/2R(ρ;v)=v,μ22Cmin(ρ;v)σ˙(ρ).\cos\theta\;=\;\frac{\sum_{i}\int\rho_{i}\,\partial_{x}\phi_{i}\,\partial_{x}\mu_{i}\,dx}{\Bigl(\sum_{i}\int\rho_{i}\,|\partial_{x}\phi_{i}|^{2}\,dx\Bigr)^{1/2}\Bigl(\sum_{i}\int\rho_{i}\,|\partial_{x}\mu_{i}|^{2}\,dx\Bigr)^{1/2}}\,\qquad R(\rho;v)\;=\;\frac{\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}}{2\,C_{\min}(\rho;v)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho)}\,.

Verification. On the gradient-flow ray v=Lρ,Gμv=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu one expects alignment and equality R1R\simeq 1. For arbitrary admissible vv one expects the identity R=cos2θR=\cos^{2}\theta.

Numerically, on 𝕋L\mathbb{T}_{L} with L=40L=40, N{256,512}N\in\{256,512\}, rectangle rule for integrals, pseudospectral derivatives with 2/32/3 de-aliasing, mean zero projection, and a small SPD stabiliser in Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}.

We observe 1R1031-R\lesssim 10^{-3} on the ray and |Rcos2θ|1012|R-\cos^{2}\theta|\lesssim 10^{-12} for random vv, with linear solves reaching residuals O(1012)O(10^{-12}). This supports that the cost-entropy equality and the angle identity extend to a minimal internal multiplet within the stated hypotheses.

B. Static gauge covariance at the level of instantaneous scalars.

Setting. Let A(x)A(x) be a fixed U(1)U(1) potential and S(x)S(x) a phase. Form the covariant momentum p=xSqAp=\partial_{x}S-qA and the associated reversible tangent vJ=x(ρp)v_{J}=\partial_{x}(\rho\,p) at a fixed positive scalar density ρ\rho with the same FF and GG as above. The metriplectic scalars at the frozen state are

σ˙(ρ)=𝕋Lρ|xμ|2𝑑x𝒞min(ρ;v) from Lρ,Gϕ=vR(ρ;v)=v,μ22𝒞minσ˙.\dot{\sigma}(\rho)\;=\;\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}\rho\,|\partial_{x}\mu|^{2}\,dx\,\qquad\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)\text{ from }L_{\rho,G}\phi=v\,\qquad R(\rho;v)\;=\;\frac{\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}}{2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}\dot{\sigma}}\,.

Verification. Since σ˙\dot{\sigma} and 𝒞min\mathcal{C}_{\min} depend on (ρ,G,F)(\rho,G,F) and the chosen tangent vv but not on SS or AA independently of vv, one expects: (i) σ˙(ρ)\dot{\sigma}(\rho) is unchanged under replacements (A,S)(A~,S~)(A,S)\mapsto(\tilde{A},\tilde{S}) at fixed ρ\rho, (ii) for v=vJv=v_{J} built from different static (A,S)(A,S), Cmin(ρ;v)C_{\min}(\rho;v) varies with vv as it should, and the commuting identity R=cos2θR=\cos^{2}\theta continues to hold.

On the same discretisation as above we observe no change in σ˙(ρ)\dot{\sigma}(\rho) to numerical floor across many draws of (A,S)(A,S), and |Rcos2θ|1012|R-\cos^{2}\theta|\lesssim 10^{-12} for each vJv_{J}. As an external check, the heat oracle with initial mode ρ(x,0)=ρ0[1+εcos(kx)]\rho(x,0)=\rho_{0}[1+\varepsilon\cos(kx)] satisfies ΔF=0Tσ˙𝑑t\Delta F=\int_{0}^{T}\dot{\sigma}\,dt within O(103)O(10^{-3}) at N=4095N=4095 in the presence of a static A(x)A(x), consistent with the continuum identity.

These observations indicate that the instantaneous metriplectic scalars used in the paper are consistent with static gauge structure at the level of the stated hypotheses.

C. Controlled reversible-dissipative crossover at fixed state.

Setting. At a fixed strictly positive ρ\rho, define the pure gradient direction vG=Lρ,Gμv_{G}=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu and a reversible proxy vJ=x(ρuJ)v_{J}=\partial_{x}(\rho\,u_{J}) with a smooth uJu_{J}. Consider the convex mixture

v(η)=(1η)vG+ηvJη[0,1].v(\eta)\;=\;(1-\eta)\,v_{G}\;+\;\eta\,v_{J}\,\qquad\eta\in[0,1]\,.

For each η\eta compute Cmin(ρ;v(η))C_{\min}(\rho;v(\eta)) from Lρ,Gϕ=v(η)L_{\rho,G}\phi=v(\eta), the instantaneous power v(η),μ\langle v(\eta),\mu\rangle, the entropy production σ˙(ρ)\dot{\sigma}(\rho), and

R(η)=v(η),μ22Cmin(ρ;v(η))σ˙(ρ)cosθ(η) from the inner product on xϕ and xμ.R(\eta)\;=\;\frac{\langle v(\eta),\mu\rangle^{2}}{2\,C_{\min}(\rho;v(\eta))\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho)}\,\qquad\cos\theta(\eta)\text{ from the inner product on }\partial_{x}\phi\text{ and }\partial_{x}\mu\,.

Verification. Equality is expected at η=0\eta=0 where vv lies on the gradient flow ray, with R(0)1R(0)\simeq 1 and cos2θ(0)1\cos^{2}\theta(0)\simeq 1. For η>0\eta>0 one expects a strict inequality with R(η)=cos2θ(η)[0,1)R(\eta)=\cos^{2}\theta(\eta)\in[0,1) that decreases as the reversible content increases.

On the same periodic discretisation with L=40L=40, N=512N=512, λ=0.10\lambda=0.10, we observe 1R(0)2×1041-R(0)\lesssim 2\times 10^{-4} and a smooth monotone increase of the gap 1R(η)1-R(\eta) up to 1R(1)11-R(1)\approx 1 when the direction is purely reversible, while |R(η)cos2θ(η)|1012|R(\eta)-\cos^{2}\theta(\eta)|\lesssim 10^{-12} for all η\eta.

Linear solves converge to residuals O(1012)O(10^{-12}) throughout. This quantifies the reversible-dissipative decomposition at fixed ρ\rho in terms of the commuting angle, and is consistent with the cost-entropy inequality and its equality case proved in the main text.

Discretisation and tolerances. Periodic domain 𝕋L\mathbb{T}_{L} with representative L=40L=40, grid size N{256,512}N\in\{256,512\}, rectangle rule for spatial integrals, pseudospectral differentiation with 2/32/3 de-aliasing for products, projection to the mean-zero subspace, and an SPD stabiliser εmass\varepsilon_{\mathrm{mass}} in Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} at the level 10610^{-6}.

Linear systems are solved by preconditioned conjugate gradients to residuals O(1012)O(10^{-12}). Reported relative discrepancies refer to these tolerances and decrease with NN in the usual way.

5  Assembly and emergence

Assembly and scope. We now progress on, to assemble the symmetric and antisymmetric mobility blocks developed here with the reversible classification of the companion paper [1]. All statements are within the class of local, first order Hamiltonian theories on (ρ,S)(\rho,S) on flat domains, with admissible boundary conditions and ρ\rho strictly positive on its support. The two scalar certificates proved earlier in the paper drive the section: the equality certificate on the irreversible ray and the no-work certificate for the reversible cone.

Commentary. One operator sets the geometry. One inner product measures angles and lengths. The same current can flow in two perpendicular directions: down the slope (dissipation) and around the level sets (reversible motion). We make this precise and give simple tests that either pass or fail.

Standing hypotheses for this section. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all statements below are made under the following conditions.

  • State space and positivity. We work on a fixed spatial domain Ωd\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} with d1d\geq 1. The density ρ(x,t)\rho(x,t) is strictly positive on each connected component of its support and normalised,

    ρ(x,t)>0for all xΩ,Ωρ(x,t)𝑑x=1.\rho(x,t)>0\quad\text{for all }x\in\Omega,\qquad\int_{\Omega}\rho(x,t)\,dx=1.

    This positivity and normalisation are exactly the hypotheses used in the functional setting of Appendix A: they guarantee that the weighted Poisson operator Lρ,Gϕ:=(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi:=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\phi) is symmetric and coercive on the mean zero subspace, so that the KKT problem Lρ,Gϕ=vL_{\rho,G}\phi=v has a unique solution ϕ\phi for each mean zero tangent vv in Hρ1(Ω)H^{-1}_{\rho}(\Omega).

  • Irreversible metric and pairings. The mobility G(x)G(x) is a symmetric, uniformly elliptic and bounded matrix field,

    G(x)=G(x),γmin|ξ|2ξG(x)ξγmax|ξ|2for all ξd,xΩ,G(x)=G(x)^{\top},\qquad\gamma_{\min}\,|\xi|^{2}\leq\xi^{\top}G(x)\,\xi\leq\gamma_{\max}\,|\xi|^{2}\quad\text{for all }\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\,x\in\Omega,

    for some fixed 0<γminγmax<0<\gamma_{\min}\leq\gamma_{\max}<\infty. All scalar products on gradients use the weighted pairing

    a,bρ,G:=Ωρ(x)G(x)a(x)b(x)𝑑x,\langle a,b\rangle_{\rho,G}:=\int_{\Omega}\rho(x)\,G(x)\,a(x)\!\cdot\!b(x)\,dx,

    initially defined on H1(Ω)H^{1}(\Omega) and then extended by density to the mean zero subspace used in the KKT solve. This is the metric singled out earlier by the cost entropy inequality and its equality cases: under these hypotheses the irreversible drift is exactly the Wasserstein gradient flow virr=(ρGμ)v_{\mathrm{irr}}=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\mu) for μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho.

  • Reversible channel and weighted Liouville condition. The reversible structure is specified by an antisymmetric matrix field J(x)=J(x)J(x)=-J(x)^{\top} which satisfies the weighted Liouville identity

    i(ρ(x)Jij(x))=0\nabla_{i}\big(\rho(x)\,J^{ij}(x)\big)=0

    in the sense of distributions, that is, each column of the tensor field ρJ\rho J is divergence free with respect to Lebesgue measure. As shown in Lemma B.1, this condition is equivalent to the statement that the reversible power vanishes identically: for every sufficiently smooth test potential μ\mu one has

    Prev(ρ;μ):=vrev,μHρ1=0,P_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho;\mu):=\big\langle v_{\mathrm{rev}},\,\mu\big\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}=0,

    so that the reversible component generated by JJ preserves the free energy F[ρ]F[\rho] and does no work in the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} geometry.

  • Boundary classes. The spatial domain is either periodic, or a bounded Lipschitz domain with boundary conditions chosen from the admissible classes described in Appendix A. Concretely, we impose either periodic boundaries, or no flux conditions for the irreversible and reversible fluxes,

    ρGμn=0,ρJμn=0on Ω,\rho G\nabla\mu\cdot n=0,\qquad\rho J\nabla\mu\cdot n=0\quad\text{on }\partial\Omega,

    or, in the assembled (ρ,S)(\rho,S) picture, constant SS on Ω\partial\Omega. These are exactly the boundary classes for which integration by parts produces no boundary contributions, so that the global mass balance and the no work identities used in the metriplectic decomposition are valid without additional boundary terms.

Commentary. Think of GG as a local conductance and JJ as a local rotator. The first moves you downhill. The second swirls you around without changing height. We keep the rules simple and local so every identity is checkable.

5.1 Geometry, operators, and the two certificates

5.1.1 Operators and geometry

Let F[ρ]F[\rho] be a free energy with chemical potential μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho. The weighted Poisson operator, its KKT potential, and the two canonical velocity components are

Lρ,Gϕ:=(ρGϕ),Lρ,Gϕ=v,L_{\rho,G}\phi\;:=\;-\,\nabla\cdot\!\big(\rho\,G\,\nabla\phi\big),\qquad-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v,
vG:=(ρGμ),vJ:=(ρJμ).v_{G}\;:=\;\nabla\cdot\!\big(\rho\,G\,\nabla\mu\big),\qquad v_{J}\;:=\;\nabla\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu\big).

It is convenient to package the symmetric and antisymmetric parts in

𝒦:=G+iJ,v=(ρ𝒦μ).\mathcal{K}\;:=\;G+i\,J,\qquad v\;=\;\nabla\cdot\!\big(\rho\,\mathcal{K}\,\nabla\mu\big).

This notation is a mnemonic only, we do not assume any GG-compatibility of JJ unless stated. All scalar identities below are proved in the real ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G} geometry together with the no-work property for JJ. See Appendix F for the KKT characterisation of CminC_{\min} and the mean-zero gauge conventions.

KKT solves, slice pulls, coarse graining and falsifier variants are provided in the code archive in Appendix F.

Commentary. There is one current vv. Writing vv with GG gives the downhill part. Writing the same vv with JJ gives the sideways part. Putting them into 𝒦\mathcal{K} is just a tidy way to look at both at once.

5.1.2 Scalar certificates: equality on the irreversible ray, and no-work for the reversible cone

Define the KKT potential ϕ\phi by Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v. Define the control and production functionals

2Cmin:=ρGϕϕdx,σ˙:=ρGμμdx.2C_{\min}\;:=\;\int\rho\,G\,\nabla\phi\!\cdot\!\nabla\phi\,dx,\qquad\dot{\sigma}\;:=\;\int\rho\,G\,\nabla\mu\!\cdot\!\nabla\mu\,dx.
Equality dial (irreversible certificate).

For any admissible vv,

v,μ2 2Cminσ˙,R:=v,μ22Cminσ˙=cos2θρ,G[0,1].\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}\;\leq\;2\,C_{\min}\,\dot{\sigma},\qquad R\;:=\;\frac{\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}}{2C_{\min}\dot{\sigma}}\;=\;\cos^{2}\!\theta_{\rho,G}\;\in[0,1]. (5.1)

In our sign convention vG=Lρ,Gμv_{G}=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu, hence Lρ,Gϕ=vG-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v_{G} gives ϕ=μ\phi=\mu and saturates R=1R=1.

Here θρ,G\theta_{\rho,G} is the angle between ϕ\nabla\phi and μ\nabla\mu in the ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G} metric. The proof is Cauchy-Schwarz in the weighted Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometry together with the KKT characterisation of CminC_{\min}.

Equality dial and controlled rotations are exercised in Appendix F.

No-work and Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} orthogonality (reversible certificate).

If J=JJ=-J^{\top} and i(ρJij)=0\nabla_{i}(\rho J^{ij})=0 then

vJ,μ=μ(ρJμ)𝑑x= 0,\langle v_{J},\mu\rangle\;=\;\int\mu\,\nabla\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu)\,dx\;=\;0, (5.2)

and, writing vG=(ρGμ)v_{G}=\nabla\cdot(\rho G\nabla\mu) and vJ=(ρJμ)v_{J}=\nabla\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu), the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) inner product of the canonical pair vanishes:

vG,vJHρ1(G)= 0,\langle v_{G},v_{J}\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}(G)}\;=\;0, (5.3)

since the KKT potential for vGv_{G} is ϕ=μ\phi=\mu. See Appendix B for the algebraic proof of the no-work identity and the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) orthogonality.

Equation (5.2) follows by one integration by parts under the weighted Liouville identity: the boundary term vanishes, antisymmetry kills the quadratic term, and the mixed derivatives cancel.

No-work checks, anomaly detection and repair shown in Appendix F.

Commentary. Two numbers tell the whole story on a slice. The first number RR is how aligned you are with the downhill slope. It reaches 11 exactly when you go straight down. The second says the sideways part does no-work at all. Together they pin down the split without ambiguity.

5.1.3 How to read the dials

Given a state ρ\rho and a velocity vv:

  1. 1.

    Solve Lρ,Gϕ=vL_{\rho,G}\phi=v on the mean-zero subspace to obtain the KKT slope.

  2. 2.

    Compute RR from (5.1). Values near 11 indicate motion along the dissipative axis, values near 0 indicate motion orthogonal to it.

  3. 3.

    Check the reversible certificate by measuring vJ,μ\langle v_{J},\mu\rangle and the orthogonality. Violations are linear in the size of (ρJ)\nabla\cdot(\rho J) or in a mismatch of geometry.

These diagnostics are invariant under smooth relabellings when the operator and pairings are pulled with full Jacobian weights, and they are stable under grid refinement.

Commentary. Compute the slope that best explains vv, measure its angle to the free energy slope, and check that the swirl does no-work. If any rule is broken, the numbers drop in a way that tells you exactly which rule failed.

The full dial pipeline, including KKT solve, RR and \mathcal{M} reporting along v(η)v(\eta), is packaged with slice pulls in Appendix F.

5.2 Complex pairing, modulus, and rotation

5.2.1 Complex pairing on a slice and the guarded modulus

We introduce a complex reader that measures one and the same current in two quadratures. On a fixed state ρ\rho define

ϕ,ψ:=ρGϕψdx+iρϕ[ψ]𝑑x,\big\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\psi\big\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}\;:=\;\int\rho\,G\,\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\psi\,dx\;+\;i\int\rho\,\nabla\phi\cdot\mathcal{H}[\nabla\psi]\,dx,

where \mathcal{H} is a fixed linear, skew operator defined on the same discrete subspace and grid as the KKT solve, as used in our diagnostics (a diagnostic reader for the complex pairing; it need not coincide with the system’s intrinsic reversible operator JJ satisfying the weighted Liouville identity).

The real part is the ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G} pairing that drives the equality certificate. The imaginary part captures a transverse quadrature measured with a fixed skew reader.

Define the complex modulus and the equality dial

:=|ϕ,μ|22Cminσ˙,R:=(ϕ,μ)22Cminσ˙=cos2θρ,G.\mathcal{M}\;:=\;\frac{\big|\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}\big|^{2}}{2C_{\min}\,\dot{\sigma}},\qquad R\;:=\;\frac{\big(\Re\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}\big)^{2}}{2C_{\min}\,\dot{\sigma}}\,=\,\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}.

Always

0R.0\;\leq\;R\;\leq\;\mathcal{M}.

If the imaginary quadrature is the metric Hodge rotation on the two-plane spanned by {ϕ,μ}\{\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\}, then 1\mathcal{M}\leq 1 and equality holds. In our experiments the fixed proxy \mathcal{H} saturates to numerical floor on the irreversible ray and remains within estimator tolerance along the controlled rotations described below.

The complex pairing and the associated moduli RR and MM are diagnostic constructs on the tangent space. They quantify alignment within the metriplectic split and are not introduced as physical observables.

Commentary. The complex pairing is a meter. Its real needle reads the downhill share. Its imaginary needle reads the sideways share. The total should not exceed one, and in our calibrated cases it sits right at one within numerical tolerance.

The complex pairing reader is evaluated and operationalised; see Appendix F.

5.2.2 Optional compatible two-plane quadrature

For readers who prefer an exact modulus, one may define a local two-plane complex structure JμJ_{\mu} at the given state by

μ,μρ,G=1,μ,Jμμρ,G=0,Jμμ,Jμμρ,G=1,\langle\nabla\mu,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}=1,\qquad\langle\nabla\mu,J_{\mu}\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}=0,\qquad\langle J_{\mu}\nabla\mu,J_{\mu}\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}=1,

and extend JμJ_{\mu} by rotation on the plane span{μ,ϕ}\operatorname{span}\{\nabla\mu,\nabla\phi\}, arbitrarily on its orthogonal complement. Using the induced imaginary part

ϕ,ψ:=ρGϕJμψdx\Im\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\psi\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}\;:=\;\int\rho\,G\,\nabla\phi\cdot J_{\mu}\nabla\psi\,dx

yields the exact identity

|ϕ,μ|2= 2Cminσ˙,that is1,\big|\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}\big|^{2}\;=\;2C_{\min}\,\dot{\sigma},\qquad\text{that is}\qquad\mathcal{M}\equiv 1,

by construction. We do not require this construction for any theorem in the paper; it serves to clarify when the modulus is pinned to one.

Commentary. If you choose the sideways direction to be exactly a right angle to the downhill direction, then the two needles add up to a perfect circle. That pins the total to one by definition.

5.2.3 Measurement protocol for \mathcal{M} and RR

Given a state ρ\rho and a velocity vv:

  1. 1.

    Solve Lρ,Gϕ=vL_{\rho,G}\phi=v on the mean-zero subspace to obtain the KKT slope.

  2. 2.

    Evaluate 2Cmin2C_{\min} and σ˙\dot{\sigma} in the ρG\rho G pairing on the same discrete subspace as the KKT solve.

  3. 3.

    Compute ϕ,μ\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}} with the fixed proxy \mathcal{H} on the same grid and subspace. Report RR and \mathcal{M} jointly.

  4. 4.

    For diffeomorphic pulls use full Jacobian weights in both the operator and the pairings. Report solver tolerances with grid refinement so that RR approaches one on vGv_{G} and \mathcal{M} remains at one within estimator floor.

Commentary. Same grid, same space, same weights. Solve once, measure twice. The two numbers tell you what part is downhill and what part is sideways.

Same-grid evaluations of 2Cmin2C_{\min}, σ˙\dot{\sigma} and ϕ,μ\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}} implemented in Appendix F.

5.2.4 Rotation along the η\eta path

Consider the controlled path v(η)=(1η)vG+ηvJv(\eta)=(1-\eta)\,v_{G}+\eta\,v_{J} with η[0,1]\eta\in[0,1]. Along this path we observe that \mathcal{M} remains at one within estimator floor while

R(v(η))=cos2θρ,G(η)R\big(v(\eta)\big)\;=\;\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}\big(\eta\big)

decreases monotonically from 11 to near 0 as reversible content increases. This confirms that, within the compatible two-plane geometry, the complex norm is conserved while its real share rotates into the imaginary quadrature. The path is a rotation of one current, not a splice of two models. We report the deviation δ:=|1|\delta_{\mathcal{M}}:=\big|\mathcal{M}-1\big| along v(η)v(\eta) and its grid-refinement slope in Appendix F.

Commentary. Turn the knob and the needle swings from downhill to sideways, but the total length stays the same. That is a clean rotation, not a switch of machines.

Controlled path v(η)v(\eta) with joint reporting of \mathcal{M} and RR shown in Appendix F.

5.3 Relativistic assembly and slice covariance

We now show that the spatial metriplectic structure admits a natural covariant packaging on a fixed background spacetime, and that the instantaneous certificates are invariant under smooth relabellings of space. Throughout this subsection the background Lorentzian metric is purely kinematic; all dynamical structure still lives in ρ\rho, GG, JJ and the free energy FF.

The Lorentzian formulation later is purely kinematic: the background metric gg is fixed, and no relativistic dynamics are claimed beyond the tensor transformation rules used.

5.3.1 Complex four-current and conservation

Let (,g)(\mathcal{M},g) be a fixed time oriented globally hyperbolic spacetime with Levi-Civita connection \nabla and background volume form dVgdV_{g}. We treat ρ\rho as a strictly positive scalar density with respect to dVgdV_{g} so that ρdVg\rho\,dV_{g} is the physical mass measure, with

Σtρ𝑑Σt= 1\int_{\Sigma_{t}}\rho\,d\Sigma_{t}\;=\;1

for each Cauchy slice Σt\Sigma_{t}. Indices are raised and lowered with gμνg_{\mu\nu}.

We take GμνG^{\mu\nu} and JμνJ^{\mu\nu} to be smooth tensor fields with the following properties.

  • Gμν=GνμG^{\mu\nu}=G^{\nu\mu} is symmetric, uniformly bounded, and positive on spatial directions: for every future pointing unit normal nμn_{\mu} to each Σt\Sigma_{t}, one has Gμνnν=0G^{\mu\nu}n_{\nu}=0 and there exist constants 0<γminγmax<0<\gamma_{\min}\leq\gamma_{\max}<\infty such that

    γminhijξiξjGijξiξjγmaxhijξiξj\gamma_{\min}\,h_{ij}\,\xi^{i}\xi^{j}\;\leq\;G^{ij}\,\xi_{i}\xi_{j}\;\leq\;\gamma_{\max}\,h_{ij}\,\xi^{i}\xi^{j}

    for all spatial covectors ξ\xi, where hijh_{ij} is the induced Riemannian metric on Σt\Sigma_{t}.

  • Jμν=JνμJ^{\mu\nu}=-J^{\nu\mu} is antisymmetric and purely spatial in the same sense, with the weighted Liouville condition

    μ(ρJμν)= 0\nabla_{\mu}\big(\rho\,J^{\mu\nu}\big)\;=\;0 (5.4)

    interpreted in the distributional sense. Equivalently, each column of the tensor density ρJμν\rho J^{\mu\nu} is divergence free with respect to the Lebesgue measure induced by gg.

Given a smooth chemical potential μ:\mu\colon\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R} we define the complex four-current

jμ:=ρ𝒦μννμ,𝒦μν:=Gμν+iJμν.j^{\mu}\;:=\;-\,\rho\,\mathcal{K}^{\mu\nu}\,\nabla_{\nu}\mu,\qquad\mathcal{K}^{\mu\nu}\;:=\;G^{\mu\nu}+i\,J^{\mu\nu}. (5.5)

We write

jμ=ρGμννμ,jμ=ρJμννμ.\Re j^{\mu}=-\,\rho\,G^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu,\qquad\Im j^{\mu}=-\,\rho\,J^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu.
Lemma 5.1 (Conservation of the reversible four-current).

Under the hypotheses above, for every smooth μ\mu one has

μ(jμ)= 0.\nabla_{\mu}\big(\Im j^{\mu}\big)\;=\;0.
Proof.

Compute

μ(jμ)=μ(ρJμννμ)=(μ(ρJμν))νμ+ρJμνμνμ.\nabla_{\mu}\big(\Im j^{\mu}\big)=\nabla_{\mu}\big(\rho\,J^{\mu\nu}\,\nabla_{\nu}\mu\big)=\big(\nabla_{\mu}(\rho J^{\mu\nu})\big)\,\nabla_{\nu}\mu+\rho\,J^{\mu\nu}\,\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu.

The first term vanishes by the weighted Liouville identity (5.4). Since \nabla is torsion free the Hessian μνμ\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu is symmetric under exchange of μ\mu and ν\nu, whereas JμνJ^{\mu\nu} is antisymmetric, so

Jμνμνμ=Jνμμνμ=JμνμνμJ^{\mu\nu}\,\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu=-\,J^{\nu\mu}\,\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu=-\,J^{\mu\nu}\,\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu

and hence Jμνμνμ=0J^{\mu\nu}\,\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}\mu=0. The second term therefore vanishes and the result follows. ∎

The real part encodes the dissipative divergence. In general μ(jμ)\nabla_{\mu}(\Re j^{\mu}) does not vanish. On each time slice Σt\Sigma_{t} with unit normal nμn_{\mu} we decompose jμ\Re j^{\mu} into normal and tangential parts

jμ=(j)nμ+jμ,nμjμ=0,\Re j^{\mu}=\big(j^{\perp}\big)\,n^{\mu}+j^{\mu}_{\parallel},\qquad n_{\mu}j^{\mu}_{\parallel}=0,

and define the spatial irreversible flux by vi:=jiv^{i}:=j^{i}_{\parallel} in adapted coordinates. A short calculation using the Gauss formula and the fact that GμνG^{\mu\nu} is purely spatial shows that the spatial divergence of jμ\Re j^{\mu} on Σt\Sigma_{t} is exactly the weighted divergence generated by the operator

Lρ,Gϕ=i(ρGijjϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\;=\;-\,\nabla_{i}\big(\rho\,G^{ij}\,\nabla_{j}\phi\big)

studied in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.1. In particular, writing μt=δF/δρ\mu_{t}=\delta F/\delta\rho on each slice, the metriplectic irreversible evolution

tρ=i(ρGijjμt)=Lρ,Gμt\partial_{t}\rho=\nabla_{i}\big(\rho\,G^{ij}\,\nabla_{j}\mu_{t}\big)=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu_{t}

can be rewritten as the local conservation law

tρ+i(ji)=0,ji=ρGijjμt,\partial_{t}\rho+\nabla_{i}\big(\Re j^{i}\big)=0,\qquad\Re j^{i}=-\,\rho\,G^{ij}\,\nabla_{j}\mu_{t},

for the real part of the four-current (5.5), , while the reversible part is encoded in the conserved imaginary current of Lemma 5.1.

Finally, the complex pairing used for the equality certificates can be lifted to spacetime by

ϕ,μρ,𝒦:=Σtρ𝒦ijiϕjμ¯dΣt,\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,\mathcal{K}}:=\int_{\Sigma_{t}}\rho\,\mathcal{K}^{ij}\,\nabla_{i}\phi\,\overline{\nabla_{j}\mu}\,d\Sigma_{t},

which reduces on each slice to the spatial complex pairing already used in the definition of the equality dial RR and the modulus \mathcal{M}. The same operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and the same pairing therefore arise as spatial sections of a single complex four-current jμj^{\mu}.

Commentary. In spacetime language there is one complex current. Its real part gives the downhill irreversible flux and enters the continuity equation, while its imaginary part is a conserved sideways current fixed by the weighted Liouville condition. Taking a time slice recovers exactly the spatial operators and pairings already used for the equality and no-work certificates.

5.3.2 Slice covariance under smooth relabellings

We now formalise the statement that the instantaneous certificates depend only on the geometry induced by (ρ,G,J)(\rho,G,J) and not on a particular coordinate chart on a spatial slice.

Let Σ\Sigma be a fixed time slice with local coordinates xx, and let y=y(x)y=y(x) be a smooth diffeomorphism of Σ\Sigma with Jacobian matrix Dy(x)Dy(x) and determinant Jacy(x):=detDy(x)\operatorname{Jac}_{y}(x):=\det Dy(x). We define the pushed fields on the yy chart by the standard tensorial rules

ρ(y):=ρ(x)Jacy(x),Gij(y):=yixkyjxGk(x),Jij(y):=yixkyjxJk(x),\rho^{\prime}(y):=\frac{\rho(x)}{\operatorname{Jac}_{y}(x)},\qquad G^{\prime ij}(y):=\frac{\partial y^{i}}{\partial x^{k}}\,\frac{\partial y^{j}}{\partial x^{\ell}}\,G^{k\ell}(x),\qquad J^{\prime ij}(y):=\frac{\partial y^{i}}{\partial x^{k}}\,\frac{\partial y^{j}}{\partial x^{\ell}}\,J^{k\ell}(x), (5.6)

with the scalar potential μ\mu pulled by composition, μ(y):=μ(x)\mu^{\prime}(y):=\mu(x). The spatial volume form transforms as dx=Jacy1(x)dydx=\operatorname{Jac}_{y}^{-1}(x)\,dy, so that ρdx=ρdy\rho\,dx=\rho^{\prime}\,dy.

Proposition 5.2 (Slice covariance of the certificates).

Under the change of variables (5.6) the spatial operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}, the real pairing ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G}, and the complex pairing ,ρ,𝒦\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,\mathcal{K}} are invariant in the following sense.

  1. (a)

    For every mean-zero test function ϕ\phi one has

    Lρ,Gϕ(x)=Lρ,Gϕ(y)|y=y(x),ϕ(y):=ϕ(x).L_{\rho,G}\phi(x)=L_{\rho^{\prime},G^{\prime}}\phi^{\prime}(y)\big|_{y=y(x)},\qquad\phi^{\prime}(y):=\phi(x).
  2. (b)

    For every pair of gradients ϕ\nabla\phi, μ\nabla\mu on Σ\Sigma one has

    ΣρGϕμdx=ΣρGyϕyμdy,\int_{\Sigma}\rho\,G\,\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\mu\,dx=\int_{\Sigma}\rho^{\prime}\,G^{\prime}\,\nabla_{y}\phi^{\prime}\cdot\nabla_{y}\mu^{\prime}\,dy,

    and similarly for the complex pairing with 𝒦=G+iJ\mathcal{K}=G+iJ.

Consequently the equality dial RR and the modulus \mathcal{M}, which are constructed from these pairings and from the KKT potentials associated with Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}, are invariant under smooth relabellings of the spatial slice.

Proof.

The transformation rules (5.6) are exactly those of a scalar density ρ\rho and rank two contravariant tensors GijG^{ij}, JijJ^{ij}. A direct change of variables gives

ΣρGijiϕjμdx=Σρ(y)Gij(y)yiϕ(y)yjμ(y)𝑑y,\int_{\Sigma}\rho\,G^{ij}\,\nabla_{i}\phi\,\nabla_{j}\mu\,dx=\int_{\Sigma}\rho^{\prime}(y)\,G^{\prime ij}(y)\,\nabla_{y_{i}}\phi^{\prime}(y)\,\nabla_{y_{j}}\mu^{\prime}(y)\,dy,

since the Jacobian factors from dxdx and from ρ\rho^{\prime} and GG^{\prime} cancel exactly. The same holds for the complex pairing with 𝒦\mathcal{K}.

For the operator, recall that Lρ,Gϕ=i(ρGijjϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi=-\nabla_{i}(\rho\,G^{ij}\nabla_{j}\phi) is defined as the divergence of the flux density ρGϕ\rho\,G\nabla\phi. Because both ρ\rho and GG transform as above, and because the covariant divergence of a vector density is intrinsic, one finds Lρ,Gϕ=(Lρ,Gϕ)yL_{\rho,G}\phi=(L_{\rho^{\prime},G^{\prime}}\phi^{\prime})\circ y. The construction of the KKT potential for a given tangent vv only uses Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and the pairing ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G} on the mean-zero subspace, so the potential and all quadratic forms built from it are invariant under the relabelling. The equality dial RR and the modulus \mathcal{M} are ratios of such quadratic forms and are therefore invariant. ∎

Practical note.

In all reported numerical tests we discretise both the original and the relabelled slice on the same uniform grid, perform the KKT solve and all real and complex pairings on the corresponding mean-zero subspace with respect to the pushed measure ρdy\rho^{\prime}\,dy, and apply identical finite difference stencils and spectral de-aliasing. Under these conditions the equality dial RR and the modulus \mathcal{M} agree between the two charts to numerical floor, in line with Proposition 5.2.

Commentary. You can smoothly relabel space, push forward ρ\rho, GG, JJ and the potentials with the correct Jacobian weights, and recompute everything. The operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}, the complex current jμj^{\mu} and the instantaneous dials RR and \mathcal{M} do not care about the chosen coordinates, only about the underlying geometry encoded by (ρ,G,J)(\rho,G,J).

5.4 Linear response and loop phase

5.4.1 Linear response, causality, and Kramers-Kronig

Linear response is computed from the resolvent of the linearised generator on a fixed Fourier mode kk. The resolvent is taken on the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) tangent with energy pairing ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G}. For a harmonic probe at frequency ω\omega,

(iωIk)δρ^=B^μ^,χ(ω,k):=ϕ,μ,\big(i\omega I-\mathcal{L}_{k}\big)\,\widehat{\delta\rho}\;=\;\widehat{B}\,\widehat{\mu},\qquad\chi(\omega,k)\;:=\;\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}},

where Lρ,Gϕ=δv-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=\delta v is the KKT solve for the induced velocity δv\delta v and the complex pairing uses the same discretisation and weights as in Section B.

Causality and analyticity guard.

Assume the resolvent exists and the response is causal and stable so that χ(ω,k)\chi(\omega,k) is analytic in the upper half-plane {ω>0}\{\Im\omega>0\}. Then the Kramers-Kronig relations link the two quadratures in frequency:

χ(ω,k)=1πp.v.χ(ω,k)ωω𝑑ω,χ(ω,k)=1πp.v.χ(ω,k)ωω𝑑ω.\Re\chi(\omega,k)\;=\;\frac{1}{\pi}\,\mathrm{p.v.}\!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\Im\chi(\omega^{\prime},k)}{\omega^{\prime}-\omega}\,d\omega^{\prime},\qquad\Im\chi(\omega,k)\;=\;-\,\frac{1}{\pi}\,\mathrm{p.v.}\!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\Re\chi(\omega^{\prime},k)}{\omega^{\prime}-\omega}\,d\omega^{\prime}.

Operationally, a single scale factor κ\kappa_{\mathcal{H}} is applied once per grid to account for the discrete estimator used in \mathcal{H}.

Measurement protocol.

Fix kk, choose a grid of frequencies {ωj}\{\omega_{j}\}. For each ωj\omega_{j} solve one KKT system to obtain ϕ\phi, then evaluate χ(ωj,k)=ϕ,μ\chi(\omega_{j},k)=\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}} on the same subspace and report χ,χ\Re\chi,\Im\chi. Compare χ\Im\chi against the Hilbert transform of χ\Re\chi with a single calibration factor.

Commentary. Shake the system at a chosen pitch and watch two needles: in-phase and out-of-phase. If the response is causal, the two are tied together by a standard integral link. We compute both with the same ruler so they can be trusted.

Frequency sweeps, resolvent solves and KK comparison in Appendix F.

5.4.2 Geometric phase on slow parameter loops

Let λ=(λ1,λ2)\lambda=(\lambda^{1},\lambda^{2}) denote two slow external controls, for example background amplitude and reversible phase. Along a quasi-static loop λ(s)\lambda(s), s[0,1]s\in[0,1], define the loop phase of the reader by

Φ[λ]:=unwraparg(ϕ(λ),μ(λ)).\Phi[\lambda]\;:=\;\mathrm{unwrap}\,\arg\big(\,\langle\nabla\phi(\lambda),\nabla\mu(\lambda)\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}\,\big).

Empirically, Φ\Phi accumulates a small but nonzero total that flips sign under loop reversal and scales with enclosed area for small loops. The phase is invariant under μμ+const\mu\mapsto\mu+\text{const} and shifts by a boundary term under μμ+sΛ(λ)\mu\mapsto\mu+\partial_{s}\Lambda(\lambda).

Operational recipe.

Trace a small rectangle in (λ1,λ2)(\lambda^{1},\lambda^{2})-space, sample the complex pairing at the four corners and along the edges, unwrap the phase, and compare the total for opposite orientations.

Commentary. Change two knobs in a loop. When you come back, a tiny extra angle remains. Reverse the loop and the sign flips. This is the simplest fingerprint of underlying curvature.

Loop phase and winding measurements assessed in Appendix F.

5.5 Holonomy, coarse graining, and path cost

We now assemble three simple diagnostics that use the complex reader beyond a single slice: holonomy on a two parameter control family, its behaviour under coarse graining, and the path cost associated with the metric generated by Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}. All three are implemented with the same KKT machinery and pairings as in the previous subsections.

5.5.1 Holonomy of the complex reader on a control rectangle

Let λ1=a\lambda^{1}=a be the amplitude of a background density modulation and λ2=θ\lambda^{2}=\theta a mixing angle in a two plane spanned by irreversible and reversible velocities. On each point λ=(a,θ)\lambda=(a,\theta) we fix a smooth state ρλ\rho_{\lambda} and compute the corresponding chemical potential μλ\mu_{\lambda}, induced current vλv_{\lambda} and KKT slope ϕλ\phi_{\lambda} as before. The complex reader

Z(λ):=ϕλ,μλZ(\lambda)\;:=\;\big\langle\nabla\phi_{\lambda},\nabla\mu_{\lambda}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}

is then evaluated on a uniform grid in (a,θ)(a,\theta).

On this grid we define a discrete Berry curvature by summing phase increments of ZZ around each elementary plaquette,

Fmn:=ΔargZmnF_{mn}\;:=\;\Delta\arg Z_{mn}

with the usual branch choice for the complex logarithm, and a Chern number estimator

C:=12πm,nFmn.C\;:=\;\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{m,n}F_{mn}.

In the smooth test family used here the reader is nonzero on the entire control rectangle and |Z||Z| remains bounded away from zero. Numerically we observe a smooth curvature map with total flux consistent with zero and a rounded Chern index

C0,C\approx 0,

together with small KKT residuals and exact weighted Liouville diagnostics. In other words, the assembled metriplectic structure lives in a topologically trivial sector for these controls.

Holonomy maps, curvature plots and Chern estimates are reported in 17_holonomy_curvature_map.py.

Commentary. We treat amplitude and mixing angle as slow knobs, read the complex pairing on a grid, and look at the phase around each little square. In the family studied here the phase is smooth, the total curvature cancels, and the Chern count comes out as zero within numerical floor.

5.5.2 Coarse graining invariance of phase and curvature

To test robustness under coarse graining we construct a Gaussian smoothed density ρ()\rho^{(\ell)} and corresponding irreversible velocity at a fixed coarse graining length \ell, using the same background modulation and reversible two plane. On the same control grid we recompute the reader

Z()(λ):=ϕλ(),μλ()Z^{(\ell)}(\lambda)\;:=\;\big\langle\nabla\phi^{(\ell)}_{\lambda},\nabla\mu^{(\ell)}_{\lambda}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}

with the KKT solve and pairings carried out on the coarse state.

We compare fine and coarse results by the phase difference ΔargZ\Delta\arg Z and the modulus ratio |Z()|/|Z||Z^{(\ell)}|/|Z| over the grid, together with the Berry curvature and Chern estimates for both. In the regime tested here we find:

  • The phase difference is small, with root mean square at the level of 10410^{-4} radians.

  • The Chern estimates for fine and coarse grids agree to numerical floor and remain at C0C\approx 0.

  • The modulus ratio |Z()|/|Z||Z^{(\ell)}|/|Z| is close to a constant over control space, reflecting a nearly uniform rescaling of the reader by coarse graining.

This supports a simple picture: in the class studied here, coarse graining modifies the overall strength of the complex reader while leaving its phase and associated holonomy invariant within numerical tolerance. The topological content, here trivial, behaves as an effective renormalisation group invariant.

Fine and coarse comparisons and curvature differences are implemented in 19_holonomy_coarsegrain_invariance.py.

Commentary. We blur the state and recompute everything. The overall size of the complex reading changes by a nearly constant factor, but the phase picture and the total curvature stay the same. The large scale geometry is therefore insensitive to this level of smoothing.

5.5.3 Synthetic monopole testbench

To check that the holonomy machinery is sensitive to genuine defects and not only to smooth trivial configurations, we couple it to a synthetic complex field on a control space that is independent of the metriplectic dynamics. On a rectangular grid (λ1,λ2)2(\lambda^{1},\lambda^{2})\in\mathbb{R}^{2} we prescribe

Zsyn(λ1,λ2):=exp(iarg(λ1+iλ2))eα(λ12+λ22),α>0,Z_{\text{syn}}(\lambda^{1},\lambda^{2})\;:=\;\exp\big(i\,\arg(\lambda^{1}+i\lambda^{2})\big)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\alpha(\lambda_{1}^{2}+\lambda_{2}^{2})},\qquad\alpha>0,

which has a simple phase vortex at the origin and no singularities away from zero.

Applying exactly the same plaquette based curvature estimator and loop winding measurements as above, we recover

F2π,C1,\sum F\approx 2\pi,\qquad C\approx 1,

for the total curvature, and loop windings n1n\approx 1 for loops encircling the origin and n0n\approx 0 for loops that do not. This provides an explicit calibration of the discrete Berry curvature and Chern estimators and a basic check that the code path used on the metriplectic reader responds correctly when a single controlled defect is present.

The synthetic testbench is provided in 22_holonomy_synthetic_monopole.py.

Commentary. We feed the same machinery a toy field with a known phase vortex. The curvature sum comes out as one quantum, and loops around the origin pick up one turn while distant loops do not. This reassures us that the trivial Chern result in the metriplectic test family is a property of that family, not a blind spot of the tool.

5.5.4 Path cost and entropy change

Finally we connect the equality dial and complex reader back to the metric induced by Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}. For a time dependent protocol ρt\rho_{t} with induced instantaneous velocity vtv_{t} we define the instantaneous cost in the weighted Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometry by

C(t):=12ρtGϕtϕtdx,Lρt,Gϕt=vt,C(t)\;:=\;\frac{1}{2}\,\int\rho_{t}\,G\,\nabla\phi_{t}\cdot\nabla\phi_{t}\,dx,\qquad-\,L_{\rho_{t},G}\phi_{t}=v_{t},

and from this the path action and path length

A[ρ]:=0TC(t)𝑑t,[ρ]:=0TC(t)𝑑t.A[\rho_{\cdot}]\;:=\;\int_{0}^{T}C(t)\,dt,\qquad\mathcal{L}[\rho_{\cdot}]\;:=\;\int_{0}^{T}\sqrt{C(t)}\,dt.

We compare two simple protocols that interpolate between the same initial and final amplitudes astarta_{\text{start}} and aenda_{\text{end}} over the same time TT: a linear schedule and a gently wiggled schedule which adds an oscillatory component. In both cases the Shannon entropy change ΔS\Delta S is the same within numerical tolerance, but the metric quantities differ by order one factors. In the representative runs reported here

AwiggleAlinear4,wigglelinear1.7,\frac{A_{\text{wiggle}}}{A_{\text{linear}}}\approx 4,\qquad\frac{\mathcal{L}_{\text{wiggle}}}{\mathcal{L}_{\text{linear}}}\approx 1.7,

with KKT residuals at solver tolerance.

This confirms that the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) metric induced by Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} defines a genuine path dependent cost that is not determined by the entropy change alone. The present paper does not attempt a full optimality or speed limit theory, but these simple protocols already show that within the same closure the geometry picks out preferred paths at fixed endpoints and time. In this sense C(t)C(t) and the induced action A[ρ]A[\rho_{\cdot}] play the role of a thermodynamic length functional in the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometry, in parallel with the control space metrics studied in [29, 30, 31].

Protocol generation, cost evaluation and entropy tracking are implemented in 20_protocol_cost_vs_entropy.py.

Commentary. We move between the same start and end states, in the same time in two different ways. The entropy drop is the same, but the metric cost is not. Straight paths are cheaper than wiggled ones in the geometry fixed earlier, which is exactly what a meaningful distance measure should report.

5.6 Minimal slice projections

5.6.1 Electrodynamic-like projection on a slice (Analogy)

In two dimensions write Jij(x)=c(x)ϵijJ^{ij}(x)=c(x)\,\epsilon^{ij} and define uJ:=Jμ=cR90μu_{J}:=J\nabla\mu=c\,R_{90^{\circ}}\nabla\mu, jJ:=ρuJj_{J}:=\rho u_{J}, E:=μE:=-\nabla\mu, and B:=cρB:=c\,\rho. The continuity equation tρ+(ρuJ)=0\partial_{t}\rho+\nabla\cdot(\rho u_{J})=0 gives

tB+(BuJ)=ρtc+ρuJc,\partial_{t}B+\nabla\cdot\big(B\,u_{J}\big)\;=\;\rho\,\partial_{t}c\,+\,\rho\,u_{J}\cdot\nabla c,

which vanishes only when cc is constant in space and time. The Faraday-style expression (R90(BE))-\,\nabla\cdot\!\big(R_{90^{\circ}}(B\,E)\big) is an analogy that relates structures on a slice and is not asserted as an exact identity here.

Weighted Liouville and constant matrices.

A spatially constant matrix J0J_{0} satisfies i(ρJ0ij)=0\nabla_{i}(\rho J_{0}^{ij})=0 only when ρ\rho is constant. For variable ρ\rho, a sufficient Liouville-compatible choice is J(x)=cρ(x)1ϵJ(x)=c\,\rho(x)^{-1}\epsilon with constant cc, for which i(ρJij)=i(cϵij)=0\nabla_{i}\big(\rho J^{ij}\big)=\nabla_{i}(c\,\epsilon^{ij})=0.

Anomaly falsifier.

If the weighted Liouville law is violated, i(ρJij)=sj0\nabla_{i}(\rho J^{ij})=s^{j}\neq 0, the no-work identity acquires a source term

σ˙anom=sjjμdx,\dot{\sigma}_{\mathrm{anom}}\;=\;\int s^{j}\,\partial_{j}\mu\,dx,

which is detected as a linear rise in the reversible power. Restoring (ρJ)=0\nabla\cdot(\rho J)=0 cancels the anomaly.

Slice projection, reversible power readouts and Maxwell-style checks in Appendix F.

Scope of the analogy.

This projection is a bookkeeping device on a slice. It does not assert propagating density waves in the reversible sector within the present closure. Wave-like behaviour requires extra structure beyond the scalar density channel.

Commentary. On a flat sheet, EE points downhill, BB stores how strong the swirl is, and the identity above looks like Faraday’s law with clear source terms when you change the swirl strength. If you break the swirl rule, the no-work meter lights up.

Anomaly injection and compensator construction implemented in Appendix F.

5.6.2 Optical-metric projection (Analogy)

Identify Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} with the Laplace-Beltrami operator for the optical metric gij(ρG)1g_{ij}\propto(\rho G)^{-1}. Two limits are useful.

Irreversible WKB optics.

In the short-scale irreversible regime, packet centres follow geodesics of gg and focus where GG increases. Quasistatic problems reduce to the Poisson-type law

(ρGμ)=σ,\nabla\cdot(\rho G\nabla\mu)=\sigma,

with σ\sigma an imposed source.

Reversible rays belong to the companion paper.

Hamiltonian ray dynamics for reversible packets and their phase transport are part of the linear Schrödinger sector in the companion paper. We keep the reversible slice here as incompressible transport without new ray claims.

Lensing analogy.

Spatial gradients of ρG\rho G bend irreversible rays with deflection angles consistent with optical lensing under the correspondence n21+2Φ/c2n^{2}\!\sim\!1+2\Phi/c^{2} and n=(ρG)1/2n=(\rho G)^{-1/2}. This is an analogy, not an extra claim about the base dynamics.

Commentary. Treat (ρG)1(\rho G)^{-1} as an index of refraction. Higher index bends paths more. That gives a clean picture for the downhill flow and a simple Poisson law for slow problems, while reversible ray stories live next door in the companion paper.

Optical metric Poisson problems and lensing-style deflection in Appendix F.

5.7 Covariant invariants, anomaly inflow, and quantised holonomy

5.7.1 Covariant form of the instantaneous invariants

Let (,gμν)(\mathcal{M},g_{\mu\nu}) be a fixed background spacetime and let Σ\Sigma be a spacelike hypersurface with unit normal nμn_{\mu} and induced volume element dΣd\Sigma. For tangent vectors on Σ\Sigma choose a unit vector tμt^{\mu} orthogonal to nμn_{\mu} in the measurement direction. We package the slice pairing used for RR and \mathcal{M} into the covariant form

ϕ,μ(Σ)=Σρ(nμGμννϕnλλμ+inμJμννϕtλλμ)𝑑Σ.\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}^{(\Sigma)}=\!\int_{\Sigma}\!\rho\,\Big(n_{\mu}G^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\nu}\phi\,n_{\lambda}\nabla^{\lambda}\mu+i\,n_{\mu}J^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\nu}\phi\,t_{\lambda}\nabla^{\lambda}\mu\Big)\,d\Sigma.

Its real part is the dissipative quadratic form that appears in the equality certificate on the slice, while the imaginary part probes a transverse reversible quadrature in the tμt^{\mu} direction.

Under the weighted Liouville condition

μ(ρJμν)=0,\nabla_{\mu}(\rho J^{\mu\nu})=0,

the reversible contribution defines a conserved current, in the sense that changing the slice Σ\Sigma by equal-time re-slicing or mild boosts that preserve the measurement weights leaves the imaginary part of the pairing unchanged. In particular, when the same (ρ,G,J)(\rho,G,J) data are pulled to a new slice with the usual tensor rules, the dial RR and the modulus \mathcal{M} constructed from ϕ,μ(Σ)\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}^{(\Sigma)} agree between slices up to solver tolerance in the configurations we test.

Operationally, we implement these transformations by pulling (ρ,G,J)(\rho,G,J) and the scalar potentials to boosted or tilted slices, recomputing the KKT potential on the corresponding mean-zero subspace, and re-evaluating the pairings with the pushed measure. Within numerical floor the reported values of RR and \mathcal{M} remain unchanged, in line with the covariant picture developed earlier for the complex four-current.

Equal-time re-slicing and boost covariance checks are documented in Appendix F, see in particular 12_covariance_boost.py.

Commentary. We can tilt the cutting plane in spacetime, push forward the data with the correct tensor rules, and recompute the meters. The two numbers stay put within numerical floor as long as the weighted swirl rule holds, which is exactly what one expects from a conserved current measured in a fixed geometry.

5.7.2 Anomaly inflow and cancellation

When the weighted Liouville law is violated,

i(ρJij)=sj0,\nabla_{i}(\rho J^{ij})\;=\;s^{j}\neq 0,

the reversible no-work identity acquires a source

σ˙anom=sjjμdx.\dot{\sigma}_{\text{anom}}\;=\;\int s^{j}\,\partial_{j}\mu\,dx.

This term is interpreted as an inflow from an auxiliary boundary current. If there exists Jij=JjiJ^{\prime ij}=-J^{\prime ji} such that

i(ρ(Jij+Jij))= 0,\nabla_{i}\big(\rho(J^{ij}+J^{\prime ij})\big)\;=\;0,

then the anomaly cancels and the no-work certificate is restored. This provides an explicit repair mechanism and a practical diagnostic for violation.

Commentary. If the swirl rule is broken, power leaks in. Add a compensating swirl so the weighted rule holds again and the leak stops.

5.7.3 Holonomy, winding, and where quantisation appears

Let Γ2\Gamma\subset\mathbb{R}^{2} be a loop in a two parameter control space, for example amplitude and reversible mixing angle, and consider the complex reader

Z(λ)=ϕλ,μλZ(\lambda)\;=\;\big\langle\nabla\phi_{\lambda},\nabla\mu_{\lambda}\big\rangle_{\mathbb{C}}

evaluated along λΓ\lambda\in\Gamma. The loop phase is defined by the unwrapped argument

Φ[Γ]:=unwrapargZ(λ),\Phi[\Gamma]\;:=\;\mathrm{unwrap}\,\arg Z(\lambda),

and the associated winding number

n[Γ]=12πΓdargZ(λ)n[\Gamma]\;=\;\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint_{\Gamma}d\,\arg Z(\lambda)

is integer valued whenever ZZ is smooth and nonzero on Γ\Gamma and has only isolated zeros in the enclosed region.

In the smooth metriplectic test family studied here the reader remains nonvanishing on the control rectangles we consider, the Berry curvature integrates to zero, and discrete Chern estimates give C0C\approx 0. Loops placed inside this region therefore have zero winding. This is consistent with the absence of defects in the chosen control class rather than a limitation of the holonomy construction.

To see quantised holonomy explicitly with the same code path, we couple the plaquette and loop machinery to a synthetic complex field on control space with a single phase vortex. In that setting the total curvature sum yields C1C\approx 1 and loops that encircle the vortex have n1n\approx 1, while far loops have n0n\approx 0. This serves as a calibrated example of quantised holonomy within the present framework.

Control space curvature maps, coarse graining stability, loop phases and the synthetic monopole testbench are documented in 17_holonomy_curvature_map.py, 19_holonomy_coarsegrain_invariance.py and 22_holonomy_synthetic_monopole.py in Appendix F.

Commentary. In the metriplectic test family we actually use, the complex reading stays smooth and never vanishes on the control rectangles, so the net winding comes out as zero. The same machinery sees a single quantum of curvature and unit winding as soon as we feed it a simple vortex. Quantisation shows up when defects are present, and the trivial case stays trivial.

5.8 Sectoriality and ultraviolet control

Linearising the dissipative generator about a smooth background with ρ>0\rho>0 and uniformly elliptic GG gives a sectorial operator with real part bounded above by a negative quadratic symbol. In Fourier variables,

ω(k)=D2|k|2D4|k|4+𝒪(|k|6),\Re\,\omega(k)\;=\;-\,D_{2}\,|k|^{2}\;-\;D_{4}\,|k|^{4}\;+\;\mathcal{O}(|k|^{6}),

with D2>0D_{2}>0 determined by the local coefficients and boundary class. The reversible part is skew with respect to the energy pairing and does not change the spectral abscissa. Consequently the resolvent admits sectorial bounds and energy decays monotonically.

Composite quadratic observables built from the susceptibility χ(k)\chi(k) decay at least as |k|2|k|^{-2} in the ultraviolet under the same hypotheses. See Appendix H for Fourier-mode oracles and decay fits that illustrate these bounds.

Commentary. High frequencies are tamed by diffusion. The swirl does not undo that because it is a perfect sideways motion. The standard energy norms stay finite without any ad hoc fixes.

Scripts: For spectral fits and sectorial resolvent bounds and UV decay tests for composite observables see Appendix F.

5.9 The emergent picture

One operator and one pairing fix the local geometry. Within that geometry a single current is decomposed into two quadratures that are both directly measurable. The dissipative sector carries an equality certificate that saturates on the irreversible ray and a curvature coercivity bound on the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) unit sphere. The reversible sector carries a no-work certificate and an orthogonality statement in the same metric, encoded by antisymmetry and the weighted Liouville identity. The complex reader ties the two into a single dial and a guarded modulus on a compatible two-plane, without introducing any new dynamical degrees of freedom.

The relativistic packaging is a kinematic lift of these slice statements: the same operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and the same pairings appear as spatial sections of a complex four-current whose imaginary part is conserved under the weighted Liouville rule. Holonomy, loop phase and slice covariance all reduce to re-evaluating the same dials after pushing (ρ,G,J)(\rho,G,J) to a new slice with the correct tensor weights.

The role of the code archive is to certify this picture in a way that is accessible to dynamics and quant-ph audiences. Each diagnostic is designed as a small, local falsifier: equality on the irreversible ray, no-work in the reversible cone, slice and boost covariance, coarse-graining commutators, holonomy and sectoriality. When an axiom is relaxed the corresponding meter moves in a controlled way; when all axioms hold the meters lock in and stay locked under refinement.

Commentary. At the end the picture is simple: one geometry, one current, two clean readings. The same metres are used everywhere, and the failure modes are mapped. This is the level at which the reversible-dissipative split becomes directly testable rather than schematic.

5.9.1 Validations

  1. 1.

    Equality dial. On v=vGv=v_{G} the dial RR saturates to one under grid refinement and tighter solver tolerances. See 03_entropy_phase_eta.py in the code archive in Appendix F.

  2. 2.

    Conserved modulus. With the fixed proxy \mathcal{H}, the modulus \mathcal{M} remains pinned at one within estimator floor along the controlled rotation v(η)v(\eta), with RR decreasing monotonically. Compatible two-plane construction gives 1\mathcal{M}\equiv 1 by definition. See 03_entropy_phase_eta.py.

  3. 3.

    Kramers-Kronig response. Under the analyticity guard the measured χ(ω,k)\Im\chi(\omega,k) matches the discrete Hilbert transform of χ(ω,k)\Re\chi(\omega,k) up to a single calibration constant for the estimator. See 02_kk_resolvent.py.

  4. 4.

    Slice covariance. Under smooth relabellings with full Jacobian weights in both operator and pairings, RR and \mathcal{M} are invariant to numerical floor on matched subspaces. See 04_diffeo_slice.py.

  5. 5.

    Boost and equal-time re-slicing. Equal-time re-slicing and boost covariance preserve RR and \mathcal{M} within solver tolerance when weights and subspaces are matched. See 12_covariance_boost.py.

  6. 6.

    Coarse graining. Gaussian coarse-graining commutator defect scales as 2\ell^{2} across a decade in \ell with smooth filters. See 05_coarsegrain_commutator.py.

  7. 7.

    Sectoriality. The dissipative spectrum fits ω(k)D2|k|2D4|k|4\Re\,\omega(k)\approx-D_{2}|k|^{2}-D_{4}|k|^{4} with D2>0D_{2}>0 over admissible backgrounds. See 08_sectoriality_scan.py.

  8. 8.

    Ultraviolet decay. Composite observables built from χ(k)\chi(k) obey at least |k|2|k|^{-2} decay in the ultraviolet and require no external renormalisation within the stated class. See 16_uv_sectoriality.py.

  9. 9.

    Loop phase and winding. Slow parameter loops exhibit a geometric phase that flips sign under loop reversal and scales with enclosed area for small loops. Winding number is integer stable away from branch points. See 07_holonomy_loop.py and 14_holonomy_quantisation.py.

  10. 10.

    Slice projections. Electrodynamic and optical-metric projections reproduce the advertised readouts on slices with the stated caveats. See 09_em_slice_2d.py, 11_maxwell_slice.py, 10_optical_metric_poisson.py, 15_optical_gravity_lensing.py.

5.9.2 Falsifiers

  1. 1.

    Pulling GG outside divergence. Replacing (ρG)-\nabla\cdot(\rho G\nabla\cdot) by ρ(G)-\rho\,\nabla\cdot(G\nabla\cdot) collapses RR. The gap 1R1-R grows with mobility contrast and grid refinement. See 06_structure_falsifier.py.

  2. 2.

    Wrong tangent metric. Using a pairing not induced by ρG\rho G lowers both RR and \mathcal{M} in proportion to the mismatch, even when the operator is correct. See 06_structure_falsifier.py.

  3. 3.

    Nonsmooth filters. Box filters break the 2\ell^{2} commutator law and introduce spurious plateaus in the dial. See 05_coarsegrain_commutator.py.

  4. 4.

    Liouville violation. If (ρJ)0\nabla\cdot(\rho J)\neq 0 then the reversible no-work identity fails with a linear anomaly σ˙anom\dot{\sigma}_{\mathrm{anom}}. See 09_em_slice_2d.py.

  5. 5.

    Anomaly inflow and repair. Introducing a compensator JJ^{\prime} that restores (ρ(J+J))=0\nabla\cdot\big(\rho(J+J^{\prime})\big)=0 cancels the anomaly and restores the certificate. See 13_anomaly_inflow.py.

  6. 6.

    Incompatible quadrature. A fixed imaginary reader not compatible with the local two-plane structure lowers \mathcal{M} away from one even along v(η)v(\eta). See 03_entropy_phase_eta.py.

Commentary. The checks are minimal, targeted and diagnostic. When a rule is broken the meters move in a predictable way. When all rules hold the meters lock in.

5.10 Limits and frontier map

Ellipticity and positivity.

All identities are proved under ρ>0\rho>0 and uniformly elliptic GG. As either condition weakens, conditioning degrades and numerical fronts appear. Trends in RR and \mathcal{M} remain monotone up to the breakdown threshold. See 08_sectoriality_scan.py for spectral early warning and 16_uv_sectoriality.py for UV behaviour.

Metric fidelity.

The Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometry is essential. Mismatched metrics decouple information distance from free energy curvature and break the equality dial in controlled ways. See 06_structure_falsifier.py.

Boundary classes.

The stated boundary classes remove boundary terms. Other classes may require correctors and are out of scope here. Slice projections document boundary effects explicitly. See 11_maxwell_slice.py.

Commentary. The rules live inside a safe box. Near the edges the numbers get noisy first, then fail. We map where that happens and how it shows up in the meters.

5.11 Minimal reproducibility kit

Domain and discretisation.

Periodic domain, Fourier de-aliasing at the two thirds rule, mean-zero KKT solve, pairings on the same discrete subspace, and full Jacobian weights for diffeomorphic pulls. See 03_entropy_phase_eta.py and 04_diffeo_slice.py.

Solver tolerances.

Report linear solver residuals and grid refinement. In our runs RR on vGv_{G} pins to one within 10610^{-6} to 10810^{-8} and \mathcal{M} remains at one within estimator floor along v(η)v(\eta). All numbers are reported with identical stencils and weights.

Response and phase tools.

Resolvent based χ(ω,k)\chi(\omega,k) with one KKT solve per frequency and KK comparison with a single calibration factor for the discrete Hilbert transform. Loop phase reads the unwrapped argument of ϕ,μ\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\mathbb{C}} and its sign flip under loop reversal. See 02_kk_resolvent.py and 07_holonomy_loop.py.

6  Fisher scalar sector, illustration and interpretation

Having assembled the symmetric and antisymmetric mobility blocks in 5 into a single dial-and-modulus picture over the (ρ,S)(\rho,S) hydrodynamics, we now record a scalar sector built from the same density, the same weighted operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and the same Fisher quadratic forms.

The aim of this section is modest: to show that, once the local Fisher geometry on coarse-grained densities is fixed by the metriplectic axioms, one can write down an internally consistent scalar channel whose static, weak-field limit reproduces the Newtonian Poisson law, and whose dynamics can be coupled back to the Madelung sector through an effective potential. No new operators are introduced beyond Lρ,GL_{\rho,G}, and we stay within a scalar, weak-field, effective description rather than attempting a full tensor theory of gravity.

For clarity, the scalar Fisher sector developed here is an effective, weak-field analogue of Newtonian gravity within the fixed Fisher geometry on densities only. We make no grand assertions.

All scalar-sector identities and examples reported here are reproduced and tested in the accompanying script see:
Appendix F, script 25_fisher_scalar_gravity_checks.py.

6.1 Static Fisher equation on densities

We work with the scalar case G=IG=I on a spatial slice Ω3\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{3} equipped with a strictly positive coarse-grained density ρ\rho and a matter density ρm\rho_{\mathrm{m}}. The weighted Poisson operator of Section 6.1.1 becomes

Lρφ:=(ρφ).L_{\rho}\varphi:=-\nabla\cdot(\rho\nabla\varphi). (6.1)

We postulate that the log density

ϕ:=logρρ0,\phi:=\log\frac{\rho}{\rho_{0}}, (6.2)

acts as a scalar potential sourced by the matter density via

Lρϕ=κρm,κ>0,L_{\rho}\phi=\kappa\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}},\qquad\kappa>0, (6.3)

with ρ0\rho_{0} a reference density and κ\kappa a coupling constant. We fix throughout this section a uniform reference density ρ0>0\rho_{0}>0; all weak-field scalar expansions below are taken about this constant background.

A short identity reduces (6.3) to an ordinary Poisson equation for ρ\rho.

Lemma 6.1 (Density form of the Fisher equation).

For ϕ\phi defined by (6.2) one has

(ρϕ)=Δρ,\nabla\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi)=\Delta\rho, (6.4)

and hence

Lρϕ=Δρ.L_{\rho}\phi=-\Delta\rho. (6.5)
Proof.

Writing ρ=ρ0eϕ\rho=\rho_{0}e^{\phi} gives ρ=ρϕ\nabla\rho=\rho\nabla\phi and Δρ=(ρϕ)\Delta\rho=\nabla\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi), which is (6.4). The definition (6.1) then yields Lρϕ=(ρϕ)=ΔρL_{\rho}\phi=-\nabla\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi)=-\Delta\rho. ∎

Combining (6.3) with (6.5) gives

Δρ=κρm.\Delta\rho=-\kappa\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}. (6.6)

Thus the static Fisher equation is equivalent to a Poisson equation for the coarse-grained density, sourced by the matter density.

6.2 Effective potential and Newtonian limit

To compare with Newtonian gravity we define an effective potential

Φeff:=c22ϕ=c22logρρ0.\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}:=-\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\phi=-\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\log\frac{\rho}{\rho_{0}}. (6.7)

The associated acceleration field is

g:=Φeff=c22ϕ.g:=-\nabla\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}=\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\nabla\phi. (6.8)

Using Lemma 6.1 one obtains

(ρg)=c22(ρϕ)=c22Δρ.\nabla\cdot(\rho g)=\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\nabla\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi)=\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\Delta\rho. (6.9)

In terms of Φeff\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff} the static Fisher equation (6.3) reads

2c2LρΦeff=κρm.-\frac{2}{c^{2}}\,L_{\rho}\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}=\kappa\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}. (6.10)

For later use it is convenient to record the exact relation between Φeff\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff} and ρ\rho. From (6.7),

ΔΦeff=c22Δlogρρ0=c22(Δρρ|ρ|2ρ2).\Delta\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}=-\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\Delta\log\frac{\rho}{\rho_{0}}=-\frac{c^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{\Delta\rho}{\rho}-\frac{|\nabla\rho|^{2}}{\rho^{2}}\right). (6.11)

The second term is quadratic in ρ\nabla\rho and is small when |ρ|/ρ|\nabla\rho|/\rho is small on the scales of interest.

In a weak field, slowly varying regime where ρ\rho is close to a constant background ρ0\rho_{0} one may write ρ=ρ0+δρ\rho=\rho_{0}+\delta\rho with |δρ|ρ0|\delta\rho|\ll\rho_{0} and |δρ||\nabla\delta\rho| small on the scale of interest. To first order in the perturbation,

ϕδρρ0,Φeffc22δρρ0,ΔΦeffc22ρ0Δδρ.\phi\approx\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho_{0}},\qquad\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}\approx-\frac{c^{2}}{2}\,\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho_{0}},\qquad\Delta\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}\approx-\frac{c^{2}}{2\rho_{0}}\,\Delta\delta\rho. (6.12)

Using (6.6) with ρ=ρ0+δρ\rho=\rho_{0}+\delta\rho and Δρ0=0\Delta\rho_{0}=0 one has Δδρ=κρm\Delta\delta\rho=-\kappa\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}, so (6.12) yields

ΔΦeffc22ρ0κρm.\Delta\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}\approx\frac{c^{2}}{2\rho_{0}}\,\kappa\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}. (6.13)

Matching the Newtonian Poisson equation ΔΦN=4πGρm\Delta\Phi_{N}=4\pi G\rho_{\mathrm{m}} in this regime fixes

c22ρ0κ=4πG,κ=8πGc2ρ0.\frac{c^{2}}{2\rho_{0}}\,\kappa=4\pi G,\qquad\kappa=\frac{8\pi G}{c^{2}}\,\rho_{0}. (6.14)

In this scalar sector we adopt the mass-density interpretation: ρ\rho is a coarse-grained mass density up to an overall constant factor, and the scalar coupling κ\kappa absorbs both this factor and the 4πG/c24\pi G/c^{2} prefactor from the Newtonian Poisson equation. Thus the Fisher scalar sector reproduces the Newtonian Poisson equation for Φeff\Phi_{\mathrm{eff}} on slowly varying backgrounds after a single calibration of κ\kappa against a reference density ρ0\rho_{0}.

Commentary. The weighted operator LρL_{\rho} that controls cost, entropy production and curvature also links a log density potential to the Newtonian Poisson equation in a controlled weak field limit.

6.3 Self sourced branch and Fisher star

Even when ρm\rho_{\mathrm{m}} is independent, (6.6) admits branches where the coarse grained density itself plays the role of the source. A simple model sets

ρm=λρ,λ>0,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}=\lambda\,\rho,\qquad\lambda>0, (6.15)

so that (6.6) becomes the Helmholtz equation

Δρ+λκρ=0.\Delta\rho+\lambda\kappa\,\rho=0. (6.16)

For a static spherically symmetric configuration ρ=ρ(r)\rho=\rho(r) with r=|x|r=|x|, (6.16) reduces to

1r2ddr(r2dρdr)+λκρ=0.\frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^{2}\frac{d\rho}{dr}\right)+\lambda\kappa\,\rho=0. (6.17)

The regular solution at the origin is

ρ(r)=ρcsin(λκr)λκr,0rR,\rho(r)=\rho_{c}\,\frac{\sin(\sqrt{\lambda\kappa}\,r)}{\sqrt{\lambda\kappa}\,r},\qquad 0\leq r\leq R, (6.18)

with central density ρc\rho_{c} and radius

R=πλκR=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{\lambda\kappa}} (6.19)

defined by the first zero of the sine. This is the classical n=1n=1 Lane-Emden profile.

The total mass is

M=4π0Rρm(r)r2𝑑r=4πλ0Rρ(r)r2𝑑r=4πλρcλκ0Rrsin(λκr)𝑑r.M=4\pi\int_{0}^{R}\rho_{\mathrm{m}}(r)\,r^{2}dr=4\pi\lambda\int_{0}^{R}\rho(r)\,r^{2}dr=\frac{4\pi\lambda\rho_{c}}{\sqrt{\lambda\kappa}}\int_{0}^{R}r\,\sin(\sqrt{\lambda\kappa}\,r)\,dr. (6.20)

Evaluating the integral explicitly gives

M=4π2ρcκ3/2λ=4λπρcR3,M=\frac{4\pi^{2}\rho_{c}}{\kappa^{3/2}\sqrt{\lambda}}=\frac{4\lambda}{\pi}\,\rho_{c}R^{3}, (6.21)

Commentary. The self sourced Fisher branch reproduces a standard polytropic profile and ties the radius and mass to the same coupling that appears in the weak field limit. No additional operators are required beyond LρL_{\rho}.

6.4 Dynamic Fisher equation and coupling to Madelung

The Madelung companion paper develops a reversible dynamics on a pair (ρ,S)(\rho,S) where ρ\rho is a probability density and SS a phase. The assembled hydrodynamic fields satisfy a continuity equation and a Hamilton-Jacobi equation regularised by Fisher curvature. It is natural to extend that reversible system by a scalar field ϕ\phi governed by a Fisher-type action built from the same density and weighted operator as in the static scalar sector.

At the level of an effective field theory on a fixed background we may take an action of the schematic form

𝒜[ρ,ϕ]=𝑑tΩ[χ2ρ(tϕ)2ηc22ρ|ϕ|2+κ2ρmϕ]𝑑x,\mathcal{A}[\rho,\phi]=\int dt\int_{\Omega}\left[\frac{\chi}{2}\,\rho\,(\partial_{t}\phi)^{2}-\frac{\eta c^{2}}{2}\,\rho\,|\nabla\phi|^{2}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}\,\phi\right]dx, (6.22)

with positive constants χ\chi and η\eta. Variation with respect to ϕ\phi yields a dynamic Fisher equation

χt(ρtϕ)ηc2(ρϕ)=κ2ρm,\chi\,\partial_{t}(\rho\,\partial_{t}\phi)-\eta c^{2}\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi)=\frac{\kappa}{2}\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}, (6.23)

or, in terms of the weighted operator LρL_{\rho},

χt(ρtϕ)+ηc2Lρϕ=κ2ρm.\chi\,\partial_{t}(\rho\,\partial_{t}\phi)+\eta c^{2}\,L_{\rho}\phi=\frac{\kappa}{2}\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}}. (6.24)

Static solutions with tϕ=0\partial_{t}\phi=0 reduce to

Lρϕ=κeffρm,κeff:=κ2ηc2,L_{\rho}\phi=\kappa_{\mathrm{e}ff}\,\rho_{\mathrm{m}},\qquad\kappa_{\mathrm{e}ff}:=\frac{\kappa}{2\,\eta c^{2}}, (6.25)

so the dynamic sector matches the structure of (6.3) and stays within the same elliptic class used for the cost and curvature identities.

Coupling to the Madelung sector proceeds by taking the same coarse-grained density ρ\rho in the action (6.22) and in the continuity equation, and by allowing the effective potential Φeff\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff} defined in (6.7) to enter the Hamilton-Jacobi equation as an external potential. Schematically, one replaces

tS+|S|22m+V+Q[ρ]=0bytS+|S|22m+V+Q[ρ]+mΦeff=0,\partial_{t}S+\frac{|\nabla S|^{2}}{2m}+V+Q[\rho]=0\quad\text{by}\quad\partial_{t}S+\frac{|\nabla S|^{2}}{2m}+V+Q[\rho]+m\,\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}=0, (6.26)

so that the log-density potential acts on the phase through mΦeffm\,\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff}.

Commentary. The reversible Madelung dynamics and the Fisher scalar field can be written over the same density and the same weighted operator LρL_{\rho}. The scalar sector is introduced as an additional structure compatible with the existing information geometry, and is kept within a scalar, weak-field, effective description rather than promoted to a separate or complete theory of gravity.

6.5 Microscopic meaning of ρ\rho and Fisher geometry

The density ρ\rho enters both the metriplectic geometry and the Fisher scalar sector as a coarse grained object. A microscopic interpretation can be given in terms of relative entropy between nearby macrostates.

Consider a family of microscopic configurations XX with probability measures PθP_{\theta} indexed by macroscopic parameters θΘ\theta\in\Theta. Coarse graining to macrostates induces a family of densities ρθ\rho_{\theta} on Ω\Omega and an associated relative entropy

𝒮(θθ)=Ωρθ(x)logρθ(x)ρθ(x)dx.\mathcal{S}(\theta\|\theta^{\prime})=\int_{\Omega}\rho_{\theta}(x)\,\log\frac{\rho_{\theta}(x)}{\rho_{\theta^{\prime}}(x)}\,dx. (6.27)

The Fisher information matrix on parameter space is

ab(θ)=Ωρθ(x)θalogρθ(x)θblogρθ(x)dx.\mathcal{I}_{ab}(\theta)=\int_{\Omega}\rho_{\theta}(x)\,\partial_{\theta^{a}}\log\rho_{\theta}(x)\,\partial_{\theta^{b}}\log\rho_{\theta}(x)\,dx. (6.28)

This is the classical Fisher-Rao information metric on statistical manifolds [37, 38]. In the continuous density picture the quadratic form

[φ]=Ωρ(x)|φ(x)|2𝑑x\mathcal{I}[\varphi]=\int_{\Omega}\rho(x)\,|\nabla\varphi(x)|^{2}dx (6.29)

is the Fisher information of a local perturbation δρ=ρφ\delta\rho=\rho\,\varphi. This is the quadratic form that defines the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} metric and the control cost in the metriplectic theory. The same quadratic form appears in the kinetic and gradient terms of the Fisher scalar field.

Commentary. At the microscopic level the Fisher functional that governs dissipation, curvature and control cost is also the object that measures distinguishability between nearby macrostates. In the scalar sector it measures the cost of deforming the log density potential.

6.6 Fisher metric on metrics and the DeWitt quadratic form

The Fisher information construction can be extended to the space of metrics. Consider a family of Gaussian random fields on a background spatial manifold with metric gijg_{ij}, with covariance controlled by gijg_{ij}. Perturbing the metric by hijh_{ij} changes the log likelihood, and the Fisher information on the space of symmetric tensors (hij)(h_{ij}) takes the form

𝒢(h,h)=αΩ(hijhij+β(hii)2)detg𝑑x,\mathcal{G}(h,h)=\alpha\int_{\Omega}\left(h_{ij}h^{ij}+\beta\,(h^{i}_{\ i})^{2}\right)\sqrt{\det g}\,dx, (6.30)

for suitable constants α>0\alpha>0 and β\beta. This has the same algebraic structure, up to constants, as the DeWitt quadratic form on metric perturbations used in canonical gravity [39].

Commentary. A Fisher metric constructed from a Gaussian field model over a spatial slice has the same algebraic structure as the standard DeWitt quadratic form on metric perturbations. This observation relates a familiar Fisher construction to the configuration space metric used in canonical gravity, without requiring any additional hypotheses.

6.7 Remarks and limitations

The constructions above stay within a scalar sector built from the same density, the operator LρL_{\rho} and the Fisher quadratic forms that appear in the metriplectic theory. The static Fisher equation reduces to a Poisson equation for ρ\rho, reproduces the Newtonian Poisson equation for Φeff\Phi_{\mathrm{e}ff} in a weak-field, slowly varying regime after a single calibration, and admits self-sourced polytropic profiles with controlled radius and mass. The dynamic Fisher equation and its coupling to the Madelung sector show that the same ingredients can support a scalar field acting on the phase through an effective potential. The emergence of a Newtonian-type potential from information-theoretic structure is in the same broad spirit as entropic gravity proposals [41], although our construction remains strictly within a scalar Fisher sector on coarse-grained densities.

We do not attempt to derive the full Einstein equations, to model realistic equations of state, or to address astrophysical phenomenology beyond simple weak-field and polytropic regimes. Embedding the present scalar channel into a full relativistic framework, or confronting it systematically with data, would require additional structure that lies outside the axioms of this paper. In the same spirit, the Fisher metric on metrics and its DeWitt-type quadratic form are recorded as a geometric echo of standard constructions rather than as a proposal for a new fundamental theory.

The purpose of this section is therefore limited but concrete: once the Fisher geometry on densities is fixed by the metriplectic closure, there is a natural scalar sector aligned with the Newtonian limit that can be written down without introducing further operator machinery. It provides a worked example of how standard gravitational analogies can be expressed within the same information geometry as the dissipative channel, while keeping the scope explicitly effective and scalar.

7  Conclusion

The companion paper isolates the reversible corner and its Fisher curvature; the present work fixes the dissipative channel and records which identities survive locally once GG and the boundary class are specified. Within the common information-geometric conventions, the two papers can be read as a single Fisher-regularised information hydrodynamics on (ρ,S)(\rho,S): the reversible sector is forced to the Fisher-Schrödinger structure, while the present work determines a compatible metriplectic geometry and its instantaneous diagnostics. Read together, they provide a minimal reversible dissipative split in which one current is decomposed into two quadratures with explicit certificates on both sides, under stated axioms only.

On the dissipative side, a single weighted operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and pairing ,ρ,G\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\rho,G} fix the geometry. The equality dial saturates exactly on the gradient-flow ray virr=(ρGμ)v_{\mathrm{irr}}=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\mu), with virr,μ2=2Pirrσ˙\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\mu\rangle^{2}=2P_{\mathrm{irr}}\dot{\sigma} as in the main cost-entropy identity; curvature coercivity controls the local Hessian on the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) unit sphere, and the quadratic control cost provides a slice-local reader. These three scalars are instantaneous and insensitive to the reversible bracket at fixed density, and they come with targeted falsifiers that trip as soon as symmetry, ellipticity, positivity, or the tangent model is altered.

On the reversible side, the no-work certificate and Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) orthogonality characterise the cone defined by antisymmetry and the weighted Liouville identity. In the companion study this structure supports the Fisher curvature and the linear Schrödinger completion, with independent falsifiers built from residual diagnostics, symmetry algebra and superposition tests. In this joint reading, the Schrödinger equation appears as the reversible fixed point of Fisher-regularised information hydrodynamics, while the present paper supplies a metriplectic closure and irreversibility diagnostics that are compatible with it without extending the axioms.

The assembled linear-response and holonomy picture stays local and under control. Linear response obeys a Kramers-Kronig relation under an analyticity guard; sectoriality and ultraviolet behaviour are quantified on a fixed slice; slow loops in control space carry a small geometric phase with integer winding away from branch points. All of these statements are realised by the same KKT machinery and complex reader used for the equality dial. They offer concrete observables that can, in principle, be compared to numerical simulations or experiment-adjacent models in dissipative and quantum settings, without changing the underlying closure.

The Fisher scalar sector fits into the same frame as an optional application slice. Using the weighted operator Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and the Fisher quadratic form on coarse-grained densities, we recorded a log-density potential with a controlled Newtonian limit, self-sourced polytropic profiles, and a simple dynamic Fisher equation that can be coupled back to the Madelung Hamilton-Jacobi equation as an effective potential. The reversible Madelung dynamics and the Fisher scalar field share the same density and the same weighted operator; the scalar sector is introduced as an additional structure compatible with the existing geometry rather than as a separate theory, and is kept within a scalar, weak-field regime.

Outlook remains local and under guard. A natural next step is to delimit the minimal hypotheses behind the metriplectic closure itself, test additional boundary classes with the same dial-and-modulus readers, and compare with alternative tangent models in discrete and quantum contexts, such as quantum Markov semigroups and Lindblad generators, where entropy-curvature relations take different but related forms. We make no uniqueness or global equivalence assertions. Within scope, the assembly supplies a compact set of slice identities, diagnostics and repairs that render the reversible-dissipative split operationally testable in computation and experiment-adjacent numerics; identifiability of JJ from FF-based scalars alone is not claimed.

Taken together with the reversible analysis of The Converse Madelung Question, the present work provides a minimal reversible-dissipative pair built on a common Fisher geometry. Quantum dynamics, linear response and a simple scalar sector can all be expressed over this shared structure without expanding the axioms, offering a small but coherent step towards an information-geometric view of reversible and irreversible dynamics within the quant-ph and neighbouring communities. Fisher-information and entropic derivations of quantum mechanics [35, 36, 40] provide important context: here the Fisher sector and its Schrödinger completion arise as necessity statements inside a metriplectic and hydrodynamic framework, rather than as independent postulates.

8  Related work and context

Our setting overlaps with classical metriplectic and GENERIC constructions (symmetric GG, antisymmetric JJ, entropy production). Our contributions include:

(i) an equality-saturated cost-entropy inequality in the weighted Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) geometry,

(ii) curvature coercivity bounds linking Fisher curvature to minimal H1H^{-1} path cost, and

(iii) operational falsifiers (equality dial, coarse-grain commutator, complex quadratures) that make the metriplectic structure numerically testable on coarse-grained quantum densities.

Metriplectic and GENERIC frameworks ground nonequilibrium thermodynamics [2, 3, 4, 5]. Optimal transport and the Otto calculus give the tangent geometry for diffusion, displacement convexity, and curvature bounds, with the dynamic fluid formulation and convexity principles due to Benamou-Brenier and McCann, Otto’s porous-medium gradient flow, and AGS as the standard monograph [6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 14, 16].

Stability of gradient flows under Γ\Gamma-convergence is classical [17, 18]. Log-Sobolev and transport inequalities support curvature and EVI viewpoints [19, 20, 21]. Metric-measure lower curvature provides a complementary framework [22, 23, 24]. Our curvature-coercivity estimator in Appendix H tracks observed relaxation rates on the heat-flow oracle and matches the uniform-state Fourier anchor.

Parallel settings include unbalanced transport via Hellinger-Kantorovich when mass is not conserved [27, 28], thermodynamic length for optimal dissipation in control [29, 30, 31], and geometric mechanics and double bracket dissipations [34, 32, 33]. In our setting the Hρ1(G)H^{-1}_{\rho}(G) path cost and length in Sec. 5.5.4 provide the analogous state space geometry for density protocols. The companion paper develops the reversible classification and the role of Fisher curvature with operational falsifiers [1].

Appendix A Boundary classes, regularity, and gauges

Domain and admissible boundaries.

Let Ωd\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{d} be either a dd-torus (periodic box) or a bounded Lipschitz domain with outward unit normal nn. We work in one of the following boundary classes:

  1. (A1)

    Periodic: fields are periodic and all integration by parts identities hold without boundary terms.

  2. (A2)

    No-flux: the physical flux jj satisfies jn0j\cdot n\equiv 0 on Ω\partial\Omega, hence Ωj𝑑x=0\int_{\Omega}\nabla\!\cdot j\,dx=0.

Unless explicitly stated, all statements in the main text are scoped to (A1) or (A2). Dirichlet or inflow boundaries are outside scope, see Section 4 for the precise identities that fail there. All integration by parts identities used in the paper are justified only within these admissible classes.

State and regularity class.

The state is a strictly positive density ρ:Ω(0,)\rho:\Omega\to(0,\infty) with

ρH1(Ω),Ωρ𝑑x=M>0,ρminessinfΩρε>0.\rho\in H^{1}(\Omega),\qquad\int_{\Omega}\rho\,dx=M>0,\qquad\rho_{\min}\equiv\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\Omega}\rho\geq\varepsilon>0.

We write L#2(Ω)L^{2}_{\#}(\Omega) for mean zero functions on Ω\Omega. The positivity lower bound ε\varepsilon is a scope parameter and appears in the coercivity constants below. In numerics we monitor ρmin\rho_{\min} and declare the diagnostics out of scope if ρmin<ε\rho_{\min}<\varepsilon.

Free energy and chemical potential.

The free energy F[ρ]F[\rho] is Fréchet differentiable on the positive cone and defines the chemical potential

μ=δFδρup to an additive constant.\mu=\frac{\delta F}{\delta\rho}\quad\text{up to an additive constant}.

Only μ\nabla\mu appears in the dynamics and in the power balances, hence the constant gauge in μ\mu is irrelevant. When needed, we fix Ωμ𝑑x=0\int_{\Omega}\mu\,dx=0.

Weighted Poisson operator and coercivity.

Define the weighted Poisson operator ρ:H1(Ω)/H1(Ω)\mathcal{L}_{\rho}:H^{1}(\Omega)/\mathbb{R}\to H^{-1}(\Omega) by

ρϕ=(ρϕ),\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi\;=\;-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,\nabla\phi),

with domain consisting of mean zero H1H^{1} functions in the periodic case, and of H1H^{1} functions with ϕn=0\nabla\phi\cdot n=0 in the no-flux case. For ϕ,ψ\phi,\psi in the domain, integration by parts yields

ϕ,ρψ=Ωρϕψdx=ψ,ρϕ,\langle\phi,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\psi\rangle\;=\;\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\psi\,dx\;=\;\langle\psi,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi\rangle,

so ρ\mathcal{L}_{\rho} is symmetric and nonnegative. Moreover,

Ωρ|ϕ|2𝑑xρminΩ|ϕ|2𝑑xcP(Ω)ρminϕH1/2,\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\phi|^{2}\,dx\;\geq\;\rho_{\min}\,\int_{\Omega}|\nabla\phi|^{2}\,dx\;\geq\;c_{P}(\Omega)\,\rho_{\min}\,\|\phi\|_{H^{1}/\mathbb{R}}^{2}, (A.1)

where cP(Ω)>0c_{P}(\Omega)>0 is a Poincaré constant that depends only on Ω\Omega and the boundary class. Hence ρ\mathcal{L}_{\rho} is coercive on mean zero potentials, with coercivity constant proportional to ρmin\rho_{\min}.

H-1 pairing and uniqueness of potentials.

For vH1(Ω)v\in H^{-1}(\Omega) with zero mean, the Riesz map induced by ρ\mathcal{L}_{\rho} defines the weighted H1H^{-1} norm

vH1(ρ)2=infϕH1/{Ωρ|ϕ|2dx:v=(ρϕ)}.\|v\|_{H^{-1}(\rho)}^{2}\;=\;\inf_{\phi\in H^{1}/\mathbb{R}}\left\{\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\phi|^{2}\,dx\;\;:\;\;v=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,\nabla\phi)\right\}.

Coercivity in (A.1) implies existence and uniqueness of the potential ϕ\phi solving (ρϕ)=v\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,\nabla\phi)=v, modulo constants. We always fix the mean-zero gauge on ϕ\phi. This is the unique potential used in the cost functional and in duality estimates.

Conservative divergence form and mass conservation.

Let j=ρuj=\rho\,u be any flux with uL2(Ω)du\in L^{2}(\Omega)^{d}. The conservative update is tρ=j\partial_{t}\rho=-\nabla\!\cdot j. In classes (A1) and (A2),

ddtΩρ𝑑x=Ωj𝑑x=Ωjn𝑑S= 0,\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}\rho\,dx\;=\;-\int_{\Omega}\nabla\!\cdot j\,dx\;=\;-\int_{\partial\Omega}j\cdot n\,dS\;=\;0,

so total mass is conserved. All variational statements in the main text are written in divergence form to preserve this identity at the discrete level as well.

Irreversible and reversible fluxes.

Within the admissible class, the irreversible flux has the form

jirr=ρG(ρ,x)μ,j_{\mathrm{irr}}\;=\;-\,\rho\,G(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu,

where GG is a bounded, symmetric, positive operator that acts locally at each point xx and depends on ρ\rho only through its value at xx. The reversible flux jrevj_{\mathrm{rev}} is

jrev=ρJ(ρ,x)μ,j_{\mathrm{rev}}\;=\;-\,\rho\,J(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu,

and it satisfies the scalar no-work identity

Ωμ(ρJμ)𝑑x=0for all smooth μ,\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu)\,dx=0\quad\text{for all smooth }\mu,

which holds if J=JJ^{\top}=-J and (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0 (Appendix B). In both cases, boundary class (A1) or (A2) ensures compatibility with the conservative form.

Work, dissipation, and the equality case.

The instantaneous irreversible power and entropy production at a fixed state ρ\rho are

Pirr(ρ;μ)=12Ωρ(μ)G(ρ,x)(μ)𝑑x,σ˙(ρ)=ddtF[ρ]=Ωμtρdx.P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu)\;=\;\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)\cdot G(\rho,x)\,(\nabla\mu)\,dx,\qquad\dot{\sigma}(\rho)\;=\;-\frac{d}{dt}F[\rho]\;=\;-\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\partial_{t}\rho\,dx.

For the realised irreversible direction virr=(ρGμ)v_{\mathrm{irr}}=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\nabla\mu) one has, on periodic or no-flux boundaries,

virr,μ= 2Pirr(ρ;μ),σ˙(ρ)= 2Pirr(ρ;μ).\big\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\,\mu\big\rangle\;=\;-\,2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu),\qquad\dot{\sigma}(\rho)\;=\;2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu).

Consequently the sharp Cauchy-Schwarz equality reads

virr,μ2= 2Pirr(ρ;μ)σ˙(ρ).\big\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\,\mu\big\rangle^{2}\;=\;2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho). (A.2)

Here ,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle is the L2L^{2} pairing on Ω\Omega. For any other flux with the same power, the left side is strictly smaller. Identity (A.2) and the no-work condition for the reversible flux, vJ,μ=0\langle v_{J},\,\mu\rangle=0, are the two scalar certificates used in the diagnostics.

Discrete realisation and tripwires.

In the spectral code we implement the 2/3 projector PP on all nonlinear operations to avoid aliasing and we compute the mass integral from the zero Fourier mode. We evaluate PirrP_{\mathrm{irr}} using the projected gradient to match the subspace of virrv_{\mathrm{irr}} and we enforce the boundary class by construction. The diagnostics report:

  1. (D1)

    Ωtρdx=0\int_{\Omega}\partial_{t}\rho\,dx=0 to machine precision,

  2. (D2)

    the equality gap 2Pirrσvirr,μ22P_{\mathrm{irr}}\sigma-\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\mu\rangle^{2} decreases with mesh refinement,

  3. (D3)

    the reversible power ΩρμJμdx\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\mu\cdot J\nabla\mu\,dx is at numerical zero.

Any violation of these tripwires indicates a departure from the boundary classes or regularity stated above.

Scope guard for vacua.

If ρmin0\rho_{\min}\downarrow 0 the coercivity constant in (A.1) degenerates and the potential ϕ\phi becomes nonunique across components where ρ\rho vanishes. Our scope is restricted to ρminε\rho_{\min}\geq\varepsilon. Weak solutions with vacua can be treated by working on connected components of {ρ>0}\{\rho>0\} and by fixing the gauge of ϕ\phi on each component. This regime is outside the assertions of the main theorems but can be diagnosed by monitoring ρmin\rho_{\min}.

Appendix B Reversible no-work, weighted Liouville form, and orthogonality

Aim.

We record precise conditions under which the reversible channel performs no-work on the free energy and exhibits an exact orthogonality with the irreversible channel. The key object is a weighted Liouville structure that depends on the state ρ\rho.

Setting. Work on the domain and boundary classes of Appendix  A. Let F[ρ]F[\rho] be Fréchet differentiable on the positive cone, with chemical potential μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho determined up to an additive constant. A reversible flux has the general form

jrev(ρ,μ)=ρJ(ρ,x)μ,j_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho,\mu)\;=\;-\,\rho\,J(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu,

The reversible generator is the conservative update

tρ|rev=jrev=(ρJ(ρ,x)μ).\partial_{t}\rho\big|_{\mathrm{rev}}\;=\;-\,\nabla\!\cdot j_{\mathrm{rev}}\;=\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu\big).
No-work condition.

Define the reversible power

Prev(ρ;μ)=Ωμtρ|revdx=Ωμ(ρJμ)𝑑x.P_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho;\mu)\;=\;\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\partial_{t}\rho\big|_{\mathrm{rev}}\,dx\;=\;-\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu\big)\,dx.

Integration by parts within the boundary classes and the antisymmetry of JJ yield the algebraic identity below.

Lemma B.1 (no-work equivalence).

Assume J(ρ,x)J(\rho,x) is pointwise antisymmetric, J=JJ^{\top}=-J, and satisfies the weighted Liouville identity

(ρJ(ρ,x))=0in the sense of distributions.\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J(\rho,x)\big)=0\quad\text{in the sense of distributions.} (B.1)

Equivalently, each column of the matrix field ρJ\rho J is divergence-free, i.e. ρJ\rho J is solenoidal with respect to the Lebesgue measure.

Then Prev(ρ;μ)=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho;\mu)=0 for all smooth μ\mu with any constant gauge, hence along reversible trajectories F[ρ(t)]F[\rho(t)] is constant.

Conversely, if Prev(ρ;μ)=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}(\rho;\mu)=0 for all smooth μ\mu and all states ρ\rho in the admissible class, then JJ must be antisymmetric and satisfy (B.1).

Proof. Under the assumptions (and working with the unique mean-zero KKT potential on the positive cone),

Prev=Ωμ(ρJμ)𝑑x=Ωρ(μ)Jμdx+Ωμ((ρJ))μdx.P_{\mathrm{rev}}=-\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu)\,dx=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\top}J\,\nabla\mu\,dx\;+\;\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\big(\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)\big)\cdot\nabla\mu\,dx.

The second integral vanishes by (B.1). The first vanishes pointwise since aJa=0a^{\top}Ja=0 for all vectors aa if J=JJ^{\top}=-J. For the converse, take test potentials of the form μ=ϕ+εψ\mu=\phi+\varepsilon\psi and evaluate PrevP_{\mathrm{rev}} at several choices; linear independence in ϕ,ψ\phi,\psi forces antisymmetry of JJ and (B.1). Details are standard and omitted. ∎

Weighted bracket

Define the reversible generator on functionals A[ρ]A[\rho] via

{A,F}ρΩδAδρ(ρJμ)𝑑x=Ωρ(δAδρ)Jμdx,\{A,F\}_{\rho}\;\equiv\;\int_{\Omega}\frac{\delta A}{\delta\rho}\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu\big)\,dx\;=\;-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\!\Big(\frac{\delta A}{\delta\rho}\Big)\cdot J\,\nabla\mu\,dx, (B.2)

with μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho and where the second equality uses (B.1) to remove a boundary term. Under Lemma B.1, the bracket is skew:

{A,F}ρ={F,A}ρ.\{A,F\}_{\rho}\;=\;-\,\{F,A\}_{\rho}.

We do not require the full Jacobi identity for the results in the main text. The only properties used are skewness, Leibniz, and that {F,F}ρ0\{F,F\}_{\rho}\equiv 0.

Orthogonality of reversible and irreversible channels.

Let the irreversible direction be virr=(ρGμ)v_{\mathrm{irr}}=\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,G\,\nabla\mu\big) with G=G0G=G^{\top}\succ 0 local. Consider the weighted H1H^{-1} pairing induced by ρ=(ρ)\mathcal{L}_{\rho}=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\cdot), as in Appendix  A. Denote by ϕ\phi the unique mean-zero potential solving ρϕ=virr-\,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi=v_{\mathrm{irr}}. Then

vrev,ϕ\displaystyle\langle v_{\mathrm{rev}},\phi\rangle =Ωϕ(ρJμ)𝑑x=ΩρϕJμdx\displaystyle=\int_{\Omega}\phi\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu)\,dx=-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\phi\cdot J\,\nabla\mu\,dx
=ΩρμJϕdx=Ωμ(ρJϕ)𝑑x=0,\displaystyle=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\mu\cdot J\,\nabla\phi\,dx=-\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,J\,\nabla\phi)\,dx=0,

where the third equality uses antisymmetry, the fourth is integration by parts, and the last uses (ρJϕ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,J\,\nabla\phi)=0, which follows from (B.1) (first term) and antisymmetry of JijJ^{ij} contracted with the symmetric Hessian ijϕ\partial_{i}\partial_{j}\phi (second term). Hence vrevv_{\mathrm{rev}} lies in the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} orthogonal complement of the irreversible cone. This establishes the metriplectic orthogonality used in the equality case and in the diagnostics.

Uniqueness of the reversible class within the no-work cone.

Suppose J1J_{1} and J2J_{2} are antisymmetric and satisfy (B.1). Then for any μ\mu,

Ωμ(ρ(J1J2)μ)𝑑x=0.\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,(J_{1}-J_{2})\,\nabla\mu\big)\,dx=0.

Hence J1J_{1} and J2J_{2} generate the same scalar invariants on FF. Differences between reversible generators that maintain (B.1) are invisible to the equality dial. Identifiability of JJ requires additional observables beyond FF; we do not assert such identifiability in the main text.

Failure modes and tripwires.

If either hypothesis of Lemma B.1 fails, the scalar certificate breaks in a controlled way:

  • If JJJ^{\top}\neq-J, then pointwise aJaa^{\top}Ja can be nonzero and PrevP_{\mathrm{rev}} picks up a bulk term.

  • If (ρJ)0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)\neq 0, then even for antisymmetric JJ a boundary-free bulk term survives:

    Prev=Ωμ(ρJ)μdx,P_{\mathrm{rev}}=\int_{\Omega}\mu\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)\,\nabla\mu\,dx,

    which is generically nonzero. In the spectral code this appears as a reversible power at 𝒪(1)\mathcal{O}(1) relative scale, so the PR dial triggers.

  • If boundaries violate the admissible classes, integration by parts produces boundary work of the form Ωμρ(Jμ)n𝑑S\int_{\partial\Omega}\mu\,\rho(J\nabla\mu)\cdot n\,dS, which is detected by the mass and equality dials.

Discrete realisation.

In the diagnostics we implement two checks:

  1. (R1)

    Power dial: evaluate Prev=ρμJμdxP_{\mathrm{rev}}=\int\rho\,\nabla\mu\cdot J\nabla\mu\,dx at machine zero by using a Liouville-compatible field Jρ=cρ1εJ_{\rho}=c\,\rho^{-1}\varepsilon (with constant cc and fixed antisymmetric ε\varepsilon), so that (ρJρ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J_{\rho})=0 holds exactly on the grid.

  2. (R2)

    Divergence dial: evaluate (ρJρμ)2\|\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J_{\rho}\nabla\mu)\,\|_{2}, which vanishes to roundoff for JρJ_{\rho} as above, certifying the algebra; departures scale with J\|\nabla J\| when JJ varies in space and decay under refinement.

When JJ varies in xx, both dials remain valid but no longer vanish exactly; they scale with the size of J\nabla J and with grid refinement in a way consistent with Appendix C.

Relation to Hamiltonian hydrodynamics.

Condition (B.1) is the density-weighted analogue of a divergence-free Hamiltonian flow in canonical variables. The bracket (B.2) is the natural pushforward of the canonical bracket under the Madelung map when restricted to functionals of ρ\rho alone. Our results rely only on skewness and no-work, not on a full Jacobi structure on the space of densities.

Summary.

The reversible class that performs no-work on FF is characterised by the weighted Liouville identity (B.1) together with antisymmetry of JJ. Under these hypotheses the reversible and irreversible channels are orthogonal in the weighted H1H^{-1} pairing, the scalar power certificate Prev=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}=0 holds for all μ\mu, and the diagnostics in Section G report machine-zero values in the constant JJ case, with controlled departures when JJ varies smoothly in space.

Appendix C Coarse-graining and commutator

Reported commutator dial.

We compute rel()=C(Q(ρ))Q(Cρ)L2\mathrm{rel}(\ell)=\|C_{\ell}(Q(\rho))-Q(C_{\ell}\rho)\|_{L^{2}} and rel()/2\mathrm{rel}(\ell)/\ell^{2}. All nonlinear products are 2/3-dealiased, and the same Gaussian filter is applied before norms so pairings live in the same spectral subspace.

Aim.

We quantify how a microscopic irreversible generator fails to commute with coarse-graining at small filter width \ell. The main statement is that the commutator between the coarse-graining operator CC_{\ell} and the irreversible evolution is of order 2\ell^{2} on smooth states, with an explicit leading-order structure.

Set-up and notation.

Let Ω\Omega be either a periodic box or a bounded Lipschitz domain with no-flux boundaries, as in Appendix  A. Let the irreversible generator be

tρ=𝒬(ρ)=(ρG(ρ,x)μ(ρ)),μ(ρ)δFδρ,\partial_{t}\rho\;=\;\mathcal{Q}(\rho)\;=\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(\rho\,G(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu(\rho)\big),\qquad\mu(\rho)\equiv\frac{\delta F}{\delta\rho}, (C.1)

with GG bounded, symmetric, positive and local in xx, and FF Fréchet differentiable on the positive cone. For concreteness, many examples in the text take F[ρ]=ρ(logρ1)𝑑x+U(ρ,x)𝑑xF[\rho]=\int\rho(\log\rho-1)\,dx+\int U(\rho,x)\,dx with UU smooth in ρ\rho and xx.

We define the coarse-graining operator CC_{\ell} as convolution with a centred, isotropic mollifier KK_{\ell} of width >0\ell>0, normalised to unit mass, and with vanishing first moments. For a Gaussian filter,

(Cf)(x)=ΩK(xy)f(y)𝑑y,Cf^(k)=e122|k|2f^(k).(C_{\ell}f)(x)=\int_{\Omega}K_{\ell}(x-y)f(y)\,dy,\qquad\widehat{C_{\ell}f}(k)=e^{-\,\frac{1}{2}\ell^{2}|k|^{2}}\,\hat{f}(k).

Moment relations give, for smooth ff,

Regularity and constants.

Throughout this appendix we assume ρH3(Ω)\rho\in H^{3}(\Omega) with ρmin>0\rho_{\min}>0, A(ρ,x)=ρG(ρ,x)A(\rho,x)=\rho\,G(\rho,x) and μ(ρ)\mu(\rho) are C2C^{2} in ρ\rho and smooth in xx, and GG is uniformly elliptic with bounds 0<γminξG(ρ,x)ξγmax<0<\gamma_{\min}\leq\xi^{\top}G(\rho,x)\,\xi\leq\gamma_{\max}<\infty. All KK-constants below depend only on (ρmin,γmin,γmax)(\rho_{\min},\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}) and the H3H^{3} norm of ρ\rho on the stated domain and boundary class.

Cf=f+22Δf+𝒪(4)in L2.C_{\ell}f\;=\;f+\frac{\ell^{2}}{2}\,\Delta f+\mathcal{O}(\ell^{4})\quad\text{in }L^{2}. (C.2)
Commutator.

We study

(ρ)C(𝒬(ρ))𝒬(Cρ).\mathcal{R}_{\ell}(\rho)\;\equiv\;C_{\ell}\big(\mathcal{Q}(\rho)\big)\;-\;\mathcal{Q}\big(C_{\ell}\rho\big).

The first term evolves then coarse-grains. The second coarse-grains then evolves. The assertion is that (ρ)L2\|\mathcal{R}_{\ell}(\rho)\|_{L^{2}} scales like 2\ell^{2} for smooth ρ\rho with ρmin>0\rho_{\min}>0.

Lemma C.1 (Local expansion).

Let A(ρ,x)ρG(ρ,x)A(\rho,x)\equiv\rho\,G(\rho,x) and write 𝒬(ρ)=(A(ρ,x)μ(ρ))\mathcal{Q}(\rho)=\nabla\!\cdot\!\big(A(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu(\rho)\big). Assume AA and μ\mu are C2C^{2} in ρ\rho and smooth in xx on the positive cone. Then

(ρ)\displaystyle\mathcal{R}_{\ell}(\rho) =C((Aμ))(A(ρ,x)μ(ρ)),ρ:=Cρ\displaystyle=C_{\ell}\big(\nabla\!\cdot(A\nabla\mu)\big)\;-\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\Big(A(\rho_{\ell},x)\,\nabla\mu(\rho_{\ell})\Big),\quad\rho_{\ell}:=C_{\ell}\rho
=22[Δ(Aμ)((ρA)Δρμ+A(ρμΔρ))]+𝒪(4),\displaystyle=\frac{\ell^{2}}{2}\,\Big[\Delta\,\nabla\!\cdot(A\nabla\mu)\;-\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\big((\partial_{\rho}A)\,\Delta\rho\,\nabla\mu\;+\;A\,\nabla(\partial_{\rho}\mu\,\Delta\rho)\big)\Big]\;+\;\mathcal{O}(\ell^{4}), (C.3)

with all quantities evaluated at (ρ,x)(\rho,x) and where ρA\partial_{\rho}A and ρμ\partial_{\rho}\mu denote Fréchet derivatives applied to Δρ\Delta\rho in the direction of the Laplacian perturbation coming from (C.2).

Sketch. Apply (C.2) to CC_{\ell} acting on scalars and vector fields, and to the compositions A(ρ,x)A(\rho_{\ell},x) and μ(ρ)\mu(\rho_{\ell}) via first-order Taylor in ρρ=22Δρ+𝒪(4)\rho_{\ell}-\rho=\frac{\ell^{2}}{2}\Delta\rho+\mathcal{O}(\ell^{4}). Then expand (Aμ)\nabla\!\cdot(A\nabla\mu) at (ρ,x)(\rho_{\ell},x) to the same order. Collecting terms yields (C.3). Regularity and ρmin>0\rho_{\min}>0 ensure all coefficients are bounded. ∎

Proposition C.2 (Order 2\ell^{2} commutator).

Under the assumptions above there exists K=K(ρ,G,F,Ω)>0K=K(\rho,G,F,\Omega)>0 such that, for \ell small,

(ρ)L2K2(ρH3+1),hence(ρ)L2𝒬(ρ)L2=𝒪(2).\|\mathcal{R}_{\ell}(\rho)\|_{L^{2}}\;\leq\;K\,\ell^{2}\,\Big(\|\rho\|_{H^{3}}+1\Big),\qquad\text{hence}\qquad\frac{\|\mathcal{R}_{\ell}(\rho)\|_{L^{2}}}{\|\mathcal{Q}(\rho)\|_{L^{2}}}\;=\;\mathcal{O}(\ell^{2}). (C.4)

Proof. By Lemma C.1 the leading remainder is a linear combination of terms with three spatial derivatives falling on ρ\rho and μ(ρ)\mu(\rho), with coefficients bounded on the positive cone by smoothness of AA and μ\mu. Standard product estimates in HsH^{s} on Lipschitz domains then give (C.4). The denominator is nonzero for nontrivial states away from equilibrium. ∎

Interpretation.

Coarse-graining and evolving do not commute, but the defect is 𝒪(2)\mathcal{O}(\ell^{2}) for smooth states under the stated bounds. The 2\ell^{2} law is certified numerically, both in absolute and relative form.

Reversible contribution.

If the reversible flux is jrev=ρJ(x)μj_{\mathrm{rev}}=-\,\rho\,J(x)\,\nabla\mu with (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0, then

tρ|rev=(ρJμ).\partial_{t}\rho\big|_{\mathrm{rev}}=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu).

If JJ is constant in space, CC_{\ell} and the reversible generator commute exactly on periodic domains (and on no-flux boxes for filters supported away from the boundary), since convolution commutes with constant-coefficient differential operators in the interior. If JJ varies smoothly in xx, an expansion identical in spirit to Lemma C.1 shows a defect of order 2\ell^{2} with coefficients involving J\nabla J and 2J\nabla^{2}J, bounded by the same regularity and ellipticity constants.

Discrete normalisation and the Reported commutator dial.

In the diagnostics we report the relative commutator

rel()=C(𝒬(ρ))𝒬(Cρ)L2𝒬(ρ)L2,and the ratiorel()2.\mathrm{rel}(\ell)\;=\;\frac{\|C_{\ell}(\mathcal{Q}(\rho))-\mathcal{Q}(C_{\ell}\rho)\|_{L^{2}}}{\|\mathcal{Q}(\rho)\|_{L^{2}}},\qquad\text{and the ratio}\qquad\frac{\mathrm{rel}(\ell)}{\ell^{2}}.

The coarse-graining CC_{\ell} is implemented spectrally as multiplication by e122|k|2e^{-\,\frac{1}{2}\ell^{2}|k|^{2}}. We use the same Gaussian CC^{\infty} mollifier for all runs; top-hat filters were tested and found to spoil the observed 2\ell^{2} law, as expected. To avoid aliasing we apply the 2/32/3 projector PP to all nonlinear products before computing 𝒬(ρ)\mathcal{Q}(\rho) and again to the outputs, so that all pairings and norms live in the same spectral subspace. The empirical observation in Section G is that rel()/2\mathrm{rel}(\ell)/\ell^{2} remains in a narrow band for small \ell, consistent with Proposition C.2.

Leading-order drift under coarse-graining.

Although (C.4) suffices for the dial, it is useful to record the induced drift on the operator. Writing C𝒬(ρ)=𝒬(ρ)+22Δ𝒬(ρ)+𝒪(4)C_{\ell}\mathcal{Q}(\rho)=\mathcal{Q}(\rho)+\frac{\ell^{2}}{2}\Delta\mathcal{Q}(\rho)+\mathcal{O}(\ell^{4}) and expanding 𝒬(Cρ)\mathcal{Q}(C_{\ell}\rho) via Lemma C.1, one finds

𝒬(Cρ)=(ρGμ)+22((ρ(ρG))Δρμ+ρG(ρμΔρ)closure drift)+𝒪(4).\mathcal{Q}(C_{\ell}\rho)\;=\;\nabla\!\cdot\!\Big(\rho\,G\,\nabla\mu\Big)\;+\;\frac{\ell^{2}}{2}\,\nabla\!\cdot\!\Big(\underbrace{(\partial_{\rho}(\rho G))\,\Delta\rho\,\nabla\mu\;+\;\rho G\,\nabla(\partial_{\rho}\mu\,\Delta\rho)}_{\text{closure drift}}\Big)\;+\;\mathcal{O}(\ell^{4}). (C.5)

Thus, to leading order, coarse-graining renormalises the irreversible operator by a correction quadratic in ρ\nabla\rho and linear in Δρ\Delta\rho, with coefficients controlled by (ρmin,γmin,γmax)(\rho_{\min},\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}); this matches the observed stability of the equality dial under mild filtering.

Reversible generator.

For smooth antisymmetric JJ and Gaussian coarse-graining,

J=J+122ΔJ+O(4),J_{\ell}\;=\;J\;+\;\tfrac{1}{2}\,\ell^{2}\,\Delta J\;+\;O(\ell^{4}),

with the O(4)O(\ell^{4}) residual verified numerically on the same grids and Gaussian filters used for the commutator dial.

Scope and limitations.

The analysis above relies on smoothness and on locality of GG and μ\mu. If FF contains nonlocal interactions via convolution kernels or if GG encodes finite-range hydrodynamic couplings, the same machinery applies with extra commutator terms involving the kernel length scale. In that case, the normalised dial remains meaningful but the 2\ell^{2} law can cross over to a mixed law in \ell and the nonlocal range.

Numerical check.

For the entropy-only case with G(x)=1+0.4cos(2x)G(x)=1+0.4\cos(2x) we observe

rel()2constant for small ,\frac{\mathrm{rel}(\ell)}{\ell^{2}}\approx\text{constant for small }\ell,

with weak dependence on resolution after de-aliasing and projection. This matches Proposition C.2 and validates the use of the commutator dial as a guard for form stability under mild coarse-graining.

Appendix D Necessity chain and short proofs

We now summarise the logical flow from the seven axioms (A1-A7) to the local metriplectic structure, giving short proofs of each link and identifying the scalar certificates that lock the geometry.

Equality dial refers to the irreversible scalar certificate; PR dial reports the reversible power; the commutator dial is defined in Appendix C.

D.1 From A1-A4 to the weighted H1H^{-1} tangent

A1 (mass conservation) and A4 (probe locality) ensure that all admissible variations of ρ\rho occur through conservative directions v=(ρu)v=-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,u) with uL2(Ω)du\in L^{2}(\Omega)^{d}. Defining the potential ϕ\phi by u=ϕu=-\,\nabla\phi gives the weighted Poisson operator

ρϕ=(ρϕ),\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi=-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,\nabla\phi),

symmetric and coercive on mean-zero H1H^{1} functions (Appendix  A). Every admissible vv can thus be represented uniquely as v=ρϕv=-\,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi up to constants.

This establishes the weighted Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} tangent space and provides the setting for the quadratic form of A3.

D.2 From A3-A5 to the irreversible generator

A3 postulates a local quadratic power

Pirr(ρ;μ)=12Ωρ(μ)G(ρ,x)(μ)𝑑x.P_{\mathrm{irr}}(\rho;\mu)=\tfrac{1}{2}\!\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)\!\cdot\!G(\rho,x)\,(\nabla\mu)\,dx.

A5 (steepest descent) requires that the realised virrv_{\mathrm{irr}} maximises σ=v,μ\sigma=-\langle v,\mu\rangle subject to fixed PirrP_{\mathrm{irr}}. By Cauchy-Schwarz in the ρ\rho-weighted G1G^{-1} metric one obtains

v,μ22Pirrσ˙(ρ),\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}\leq 2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho),

with equality only for v=(ρGμ)v=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\nabla\mu). Hence

virr=(ρGμ),v_{\mathrm{irr}}=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\,\nabla\mu),

and the equality certificate

virr,μ2=2Pirrσ˙(ρ)\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\mu\rangle^{2}=2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho)

which is verified numerically in Appendix G, lines N=256-4096 | PASS. Any modification of GG to include nonlocal coupling or non-quadratic terms breaks this identity, as shown by the falsifier sweep. Thus the local quadratic form and steepest-descent rule are not assumptions but necessities within A1-A5.

D.3 From A6 to the reversible class

A6 demands that the reversible channel perform no-work on FF, i.e. Prev=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}=0 for all μ\mu. Lemma B.1 (Appendix B) shows this is equivalent to

jrev=ρJ(ρ,x)μ,J=J,(ρJ)=0.j_{\mathrm{rev}}=-\,\rho\,J(\rho,x)\,\nabla\mu,\qquad J^{\top}=-J,\qquad\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0.

The second condition enforces antisymmetry; the third is the weighted Liouville identity. Conversely, these imply Prev=0P_{\mathrm{rev}}=0 identically, producing the reversible no-work identity

Ωρ(μ)J(μ)𝑑x=0,\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)\!\cdot\!J\,(\nabla\mu)\,dx=0,

verified in the diagnostics as PR = 0.000e+00 | PASS. Hence A6 singles out a unique orthogonal complement to the irreversible cone.

D.4 Orthogonality and metriplectic closure

Let ϕ\phi solve ρϕ=virr-\,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi=v_{\mathrm{irr}}. Using antisymmetry of JJ and (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0,

vrev,ϕ=Ωϕ(ρJμ)𝑑x=ΩρϕJμdx=0.\langle v_{\mathrm{rev}},\phi\rangle=\int_{\Omega}\phi\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J\nabla\mu)\,dx=-\!\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\phi\!\cdot\!J\,\nabla\mu\,dx=0.

Thus the reversible and irreversible directions are Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho}-orthogonal. Together, they define the metriplectic decomposition

tρ=(ρGμ)+(ρJμ),\partial_{t}\rho=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\,\nabla\mu)+\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,J\,\nabla\mu),

with G=G0G=G^{\top}\succ 0, J=JJ^{\top}=-J, and (ρJ)=0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)=0. The irreversible channel satisfies the equality certificate, the reversible channel the no-work certificate, and both preserve total mass.

D.5 Verification chain in diagnostics

{remarkbox}
Remark (Four checkpoints).

Equality on the irreversible ray, no-work on the equality dial, orthogonality in Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho}, and conservative mass with exact DC pinning form a minimal pass-fail chain. Any break trips immediately.

We use equality dial uniformly for the instantaneous scalar diagnostic of the no-work or equality condition.

  • Equality dial: confirms Proposition 2.2 and the steepest-descent equality.

  • Nonlocal falsifier: breaks the equality, confirming necessity of A3.

  • Reversible PR dial: reports machine-zero power, confirming A6.

  • Orthogonality: follows analytically and is indirectly checked by the simultaneous success of the previous two dials.

Together these complete the necessity chain: every axiom has a direct empirical or algebraic certificate, and every certificate fails immediately when an axiom is relaxed.

Appendix E Operator facts

Wasserstein tangent, Poisson operator, and coercivity

Define ρϕ=(ρϕ)\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi) on the domain of mean zero H1H^{1} functions with periodic or no-flux boundaries. For mean zero ϕ,ψH1\phi,\psi\in H^{1},

ϕ,ρψ=Ωρϕψdx=ψ,ρϕ,\langle\phi,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\psi\rangle=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\psi\,dx=\langle\psi,\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi\rangle,

so ρ\mathcal{L}_{\rho} is symmetric and positive on the mean-zero subspace. Coercivity follows from Ωρ|ϕ|2𝑑xρminΩ|ϕ|2𝑑x\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\phi|^{2}\,dx\geq\rho_{\min}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla\phi|^{2}\,dx. The Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} inner product is

a,bHρ1Ωρϕaϕbdx,(ρϕa)=a,(ρϕb)=b,\langle a,b\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}\equiv\int_{\Omega}\rho\,\nabla\phi_{a}\cdot\nabla\phi_{b}\,dx,\quad-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi_{a})=a,\quad-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi_{b})=b,

which is well defined on mean zero tangents [6, 7, 8, 9].

KKT characterisation of minimal cost

Given v=(ρu)v=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho u) define the functional

𝒥[u,ϕ]=12ΩρuG1u𝑑x+Ωϕ((ρu)v)𝑑x.\mathcal{J}[u,\phi]=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\rho\,u^{\!\top}G^{-1}u\,dx+\int_{\Omega}\phi\big(\nabla\!\cdot(\rho u)-v\big)\,dx.

Stationarity in uu gives G1uϕ=0G^{-1}u-\nabla\phi=0, hence u=Gϕu^{\star}=G\nabla\phi. The constraint gives Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v, where Lρ,Gϕ(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\equiv-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\,G\nabla\phi). Substituting back yields

𝒞min(ρ;v)=12Ωρ(ϕ)G(ϕ)𝑑x,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\phi)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\phi)\,dx,

with constants controlled by ellipticity bounds γmin,γmax\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max} and the positivity margin ρmin\rho_{\min}.

Proof of Proposition 3.1 (cost-entropy inequality)

Let v=(ρu)v=\nabla\!\cdot(\rho u) and define the ρ\rho-weighted pairing a,bρ=Ωρab𝑑x\langle a,b\rangle_{\rho}=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,a\cdot b\,dx. Integration by parts yields

v,μ=Ωρuμdx=u,G1(Gμ)ρ.\langle v,\mu\rangle=-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,u\cdot\nabla\mu\,dx=\langle u,\,G^{-1}(G\nabla\mu)\rangle_{\rho}.

Cauchy Schwarz in the G1G^{-1} metric gives

v,μ2(ΩρuG1u𝑑x)(Ωρ(μ)G(μ)𝑑x)=2𝒞(u)σ˙(ρ).\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}\leq\Big(\int_{\Omega}\rho\,u^{\!\top}G^{-1}u\,dx\Big)\Big(\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\mu)\,dx\Big)=2\,\mathcal{C}(u)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho).

Minimising over admissible uu gives the stated lower bound for 𝒞min(ρ;v)\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v). Equality holds if and only if uu is everywhere collinear with GμG\nabla\mu.

Proof of curvature coercivity

Let v=(ρψ)v=-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\psi) with mean zero ψ\psi and normalise vHρ12=Ωρ|ψ|2𝑑x=1\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2}=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\psi|^{2}\,dx=1. Relate this to the quadratic form that defines 𝒞min\mathcal{C}_{\min} by noting that for φ\varphi solving (ρφ)=v-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\varphi)=v (the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} potential),

Ωρ(φ)G(φ)𝑑xγmaxΩρ|φ|2𝑑x=γmaxvHρ12,\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\varphi)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\varphi)\,dx\leq\gamma_{\max}\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\,dx=\gamma_{\max}\,\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2},

and the reverse inequality uses γmin\gamma_{\min}.

We recall the Rayleigh formulation

κmin(ρ)=infv0F(ρ)v,vvHρ12.\kappa_{\min}(\rho)\;=\;\inf_{v\neq 0}\,\frac{\langle\mathcal{H}_{F}(\rho)\,v,\,v\rangle}{\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2}}\,. (E.1)

By definition of κmin\kappa_{\min} one has the sharp bound

F(ρ)v,vκmin(ρ)vHρ12.\langle\mathcal{H}_{F}(\rho)\,v,\,v\rangle\ \geq\ \kappa_{\min}(\rho)\,\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}^{2}.

Using the ellipticity bounds

γminΩρ|φ|2𝑑xΩρ(φ)G(φ)𝑑xγmaxΩρ|φ|2𝑑x,\gamma_{\min}\!\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\,dx\ \leq\ \int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\varphi)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\varphi)\,dx\ \leq\ \gamma_{\max}\!\int_{\Omega}\rho\,|\nabla\varphi|^{2}\,dx,

and 2𝒞min(ρ;v)=Ωρ(φ)G(φ)𝑑x2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)=\!\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\varphi)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\varphi)\,dx, we obtain the corollary

F(ρ)v,vκmin(ρ)γmax2𝒞min(ρ;v).\langle\mathcal{H}_{F}(\rho)\,v,\,v\rangle\ \geq\ \frac{\kappa_{\min}(\rho)}{\gamma_{\max}}\cdot 2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v).

Proof of Lemma 3.4 (alignment identity in the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) metric)

Let ϕ\phi solve Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v with Lρ,Gϕ(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\equiv-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\phi). Define the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) inner product on vector fields by

a,bρ,GΩρaGb𝑑x,aρ,G2=a,aρ,G.\langle a,b\rangle_{\rho,G}\equiv\int_{\Omega}\rho\,a^{\!\top}G\,b\,dx,\qquad\|a\|_{\rho,G}^{2}=\langle a,a\rangle_{\rho,G}.

For the minimiser u=Gϕu^{\star}=G\nabla\phi (by A.2) one has

v,μ=Ωρuμdx=ϕ,μρ,G.\langle v,\mu\rangle=-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,u^{\star}\!\cdot\nabla\mu\,dx=-\,\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}.

Moreover,

2𝒞min(ρ;v)=ϕρ,G2,σ˙(ρ)=μρ,G2.2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)=\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}^{2},\qquad\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}^{2}.

Hence

(ρ;v)v,μ22𝒞min(ρ;v)σ˙(ρ)=ϕ,μρ,G2ϕρ,G2μρ,G2=cos2θρ,G[0,1],\mathcal{R}(\rho;v)\equiv\frac{\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}}{2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v)\,\dot{\sigma}(\rho)}=\frac{\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}^{2}}{\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}^{2}\,\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}^{2}}=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}\in[0,1],

with =1\mathcal{R}=1 if and only if ϕ\nabla\phi is collinear with μ\nabla\mu (equivalently uGμu^{\star}\parallel G\nabla\mu). This proves Lemma 3.4.

Appendix F Code archive

All numerical checks are performed using short, self-contained Python scripts hosted at:

https://github.com/feuras/metriplectic/

The scripts implement direct numerical tests of the metriplectic structure, dissipation identities, and equivalence statements discussed in the main text. Each test is designed to be fully reproducible using only NumPy, SciPy, and pandas, and all produce text-only console outputs. The code does not rely on any external packages or plotting tools.

Structure and scope

  • 0A_axiom_diagnostics.py
    A consolidated, review-ready dial suite: EVI probe with a saturation readout on the irreversible ray; Noether no-work symmetry showing invariance of σ˙\dot{\sigma}, κmin\kappa_{\min}, and 𝒞min\mathcal{C}_{\min}; alignment identity printing cos2\cos^{2} agreement; torus coercivity constant with an explicit γλ\gamma\lambda bound and a sampled check; single-axiom falsifiers for symmetry of GG, locality, positivity margin, and no-work, each with clear console trip lines; local tomography of GG from scalar maps with a two-state cross-check; and the orthogonality identity virr,G1vrevHρ10\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\,G^{-1}v_{\mathrm{rev}}\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}\approx 0.

  • 00_axiom_diagnostics.py Runs the metriplectic axiom suite: equality refinement check with mass k0k_{0}, nonlocal-closure falsifier sweep, conservative versus non-conservative tripwire, reversible no-work identity in 2D, coarse-grain commutator scaling, and probe identifiability of GG, all via console dials with pass or fail verdicts.

  • 01_wave-dispersion_probe-fft_suite.py Tests dispersion and reversibility of the conservative limit through probe-based FFT diagnostics. Reports isotropy, damping, and time-reversal errors.

  • 02_metriplectic_equivalence_1d_periodic_kkt.py Verifies the metriplectic equivalence and inequality in a 1D finite-volume geometry using a sparse KKT solver. Confirms 𝒞min=σ˙/2\mathcal{C}_{\min}=\dot{\sigma}/2 for exact solutions and the bound v,μ22𝒞minσ˙\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}\leq 2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}\,\dot{\sigma} for random admissible directions.

  • 03_path-entropy_invariance_metriplectic_batch.py Runs a high-precision 2D batch test of path-integrated entropy production under mixed reversible and dissipative evolution. Confirms the integrated identity σ˙𝑑t=ΔF\int\dot{\sigma}\,dt=\Delta F across multiple seeds and reversible amplitudes.

  • 04_heat-identity_phase-blind_pinnedDC.py Evaluates the pure dissipative (λ=0)(\lambda=0) case with exact Fourier semigroup integration and DC mass pinning. Verifies monotonic decay of FF and non-negative σ˙\dot{\sigma}, confirming phase-blind invariance.

  • 05_metriplectic_identity_phase-blind_pinnedDC.py Extends the preceding test to include reversible shifts interleaved with exact heat steps. Both isolated and coupled runs satisfy the integral identity within numerical precision.

  • 06_metriplectic_commuting-triangle.py Combines all preceding channels into a single consistency test for the commuting triangle between reversible, dissipative, and constraint flows. Confirms the metriplectic structure preserves identity exactness under composition.

  • 01_dispersion.py Probes linear dispersion and reversibility in the conservative limit via mode injections and FFT readouts. Reports isotropy of group velocity, damping floor, and time reversal errors across shells.

  • 02_kk_resolvent.py Computes the frequency response χ(ω,k)\chi(\omega,k) from the linearised KKT resolvent and verifies Kramers-Kronig with a single calibration factor cHT=1.000±0.005c_{\mathrm{HT}}=1.000\pm 0.005 for the discrete Hilbert transform.

  • 03_entropy_phase_eta.py Traces the controlled mix v(η)=(1η)vG+ηvJv(\eta)=(1-\eta)v_{G}+\eta v_{J}. Logs the equality dial RR and complex modulus MM along the path, with RR dropping monotonically and MM pinned to one within estimator floor.

  • 04_diffeo_slice.py Tests slice covariance under smooth relabellings with full Jacobian weights in both operator and pairings, imposing the mean-zero constraint in the pulled measure. Confirms invariance of RR and MM to numerical floor on matched subspaces.

  • 05_coarsegrain_commutator.py Measures the Gaussian coarse graining commutator defect across a decade in filter width \ell. Recovers the 2\ell^{2} law and flags breakdown under non smooth filters.

  • 06_structure_falsifier.py Single axiom failure suite. Injects asymmetric metric parts, wrong tangent norms, and pulls GG outside divergence, and breaks weighted Liouville. Records the resulting signatures in RR, MM, and the no-work meter.

  • 07_holonomy_loop.py Evaluates the geometric phase Φ\Phi of the complex reader on slow parameter loops. Shows sign flip under loop reversal and area scaling for small rectangles in control space.

  • 08_sectoriality_scan.py Scans the linear spectrum of the dissipative generator. Fits ω(k)D2|k|2D4|k|4\Re\,\omega(k)\approx-D_{2}|k|^{2}-D_{4}|k|^{4} and confirms sectorial resolvent bounds and monotone energy decay.

  • 09_em_slice_2d.py Electrodynamic style slice projection in 2D with J=cρ1εJ=c\,\rho^{-1}\varepsilon. Reads E=μE=-\nabla\mu and B=cρB=c\rho. Quantifies reversible no-work and detects the anomaly term when (ρJ)0\nabla\cdot(\rho J)\neq 0.

  • 10_optical_metric_poisson.py Identifies the optical metric g(ρG)1g\propto(\rho G)^{-1} on a slice and solves the Poisson type law (ρGμ)=σ\nabla\cdot(\rho G\nabla\mu)=\sigma. Visualises irreversible ray bending under spatial gradients of ρG\rho G.

  • 11_maxwell_slice.py Maxwell style consistency checks for the slice analogy. Compares conservative forms built from (E,B)(E,B) and documents boundary class effects and constant matrix cases.

  • 12_covariance_boost.py Equal time re slicing and boost covariance test. Recomputes the KKT solve and pairings on matched subspaces and confirms that RR and MM are invariant up to solver tolerance.

  • 13_anomaly_inflow.py Constructs compensator JJ^{\prime} to cancel (ρ(J+J))\nabla\cdot\big(\rho(J+J^{\prime})\big) and restore the reversible no-work identity. Logs σ˙anom\dot{\sigma}_{\text{anom}} before and after repair.

  • 14_holonomy_quantisation.py Counts the winding n=12πdargϕ,μCn=\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint d\,\arg\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{C} in two parameter control space. Shows integer stability under small deformations that avoid branch points.

  • 15_optical_gravity_lensing.py Lensing style readout for irreversible rays using the optical metric picture. Measures deflection angles consistent with index gradients and compares with the n=(ρG)1/2n=(\rho G)^{-1/2} correspondence.

  • 16_uv_sectoriality.py Ultraviolet control diagnostics for composite observables. Verifies |χ(k)||\chi(k)| decay at least as |k|2|k|^{-2} and confirms no external renormalisation is required within the stated class.

  • 17_holonomy_curvature_map.py Computes complex pairing Z(a,θ)Z(a,\theta) over a control grid and evaluates Berry curvature via plaquette phases. Confirms smooth nonvanishing reader, trivial Chern index C=0C=0 and clean KKT and Liouville diagnostics on the metriplectic holonomy base case.

  • 18_holonomy_sanity_check.py Global sanity scan of Z(ϕ,θ)Z(\phi,\theta) over an extended control torus. Verifies |Z||Z| remains well bounded away from zero on 240×240240\times 240 points, with no candidate defects or nontrivial winding, demonstrating absence of spurious monopoles in natural control families.

  • 19_holonomy_coarsegrain_invariance.py Tests coarse graining invariance of the complex reader and Berry curvature. Compares fine and Gaussian coarse grained states, showing phase of ZZ and Chern index are preserved while |Z||Z| is rescaled by an almost constant factor, evidencing RG stable holonomy.

  • 20_protocol_cost_vs_entropy.py Compares metriplectic path cost and Shannon entropy change for competing protocols between the same endpoints. Evaluates H-1 metric action and length for linear and wiggled amplitude schedules, demonstrating strong path dependence of cost at fixed ΔS\Delta S and TT.

  • 22_holonomy_synthetic_monopole.py Synthetic testbench for the holonomy machinery on a known phase vortex in control space. Uses the same plaquette and loop algorithms to recover total flux F2π\sum F\approx 2\pi, Chern number C=1C=1 and loop winding n=1n=1 for loops encircling the origin and n0n\approx 0 otherwise.

  • 23_speedlimit_flat_geodesic_check.py Two-mode Hρ1(G)\mathrm{H}^{-1}_{\rho}(G) speed-limit test in a nearly flat patch of density space. Constructs a family ρ(x;a1,a2)\rho(x;a_{1},a_{2}) on a periodic domain and compares four distinct protocols (linear, wait-then-jump, jump-then-wait, overshoot-then-return) between the same endpoints. For each, solves the KKT equation at midpoints and evaluates the interval cost Cn=ρG|xϕ|2𝑑xC_{n}=\int\rho G|\partial_{x}\phi|^{2}dx, total action AA, length, and entropy change ΔS\Delta S. In a flat metric patch the straight-line protocol should approximate the geodesic; the script verifies this numerically, with all compressed or wiggled paths showing strictly larger action.

  • 24_speedlimit_curved_geodesic_search.py Geodesic search in a curved Hρ1(G(ρ))\mathrm{H}^{-1}_{\rho}(G(\rho)) patch induced by a density-dependent mobility G(ρ)=exp[γG(ρ/ρ01)]G(\rho)=\exp[\gamma_{G}(\rho/\rho_{0}-1)]. Uses the same two-mode density family but now the metric is genuinely position-dependent. Benchmarks a baseline linear protocol against an optimised sine-basis control ansatz with fixed endpoints. A batch random search over control coefficients identifies strictly lower-action paths in the curved metric, demonstrating that the straight line in (a1,a2)(a_{1},a_{2}) space is generically not a geodesic once GG varies with ρ\rho. Outputs action, length, entropy change, and diagnostic KKT convergence for both protocols, along with plots of aj(t)a_{j}(t) and C(t)C(t).

  • 25_fisher_scalar_gravity_checks.py End-to-end reproducibility script for the Fisher-scalar sector. Verifies three core identities used in the analysis: (i) the operator identity Lρϕ=(ρϕ)L_{\rho}\phi=-\nabla\!\cdot(\rho\nabla\phi) for ϕ=log(ρ/ρ0)\phi=\log(\rho/\rho_{0}); (ii) the Fisher-Laplacian relation ΔΦeff=(c2/2)(Δρ/ρ|ρ|2/ρ2)\Delta\Phi_{\mathrm{eff}}=-(c^{2}/2)\bigl(\Delta\rho/\rho-|\nabla\rho|^{2}/\rho^{2}\bigr); and (iii) the self-sourced radial Helmholtz branch. The script solves the radial ODE, recovers the n=1n=1 analytic profile ρ(r)=ρcsin(kr)/(kr)\rho(r)=\rho_{c}\sin(kr)/(kr), and compares numerical and analytic radius, mass, and diagnostic compactness GM/(Rc2)GM/(Rc^{2}). All tests return machine-level agreement, confirming the internal consistency of the scalar sector.

Numerical methods

All integrals are evaluated using uniform-grid rectangle or Simpson quadrature rules consistent with the discrete spectral representation. For dissipative channels, DC modes are pinned exactly in Fourier space to ensure strict mass conservation. Time integration uses exact semigroup updates or second-order Heun/Runge-Kutta schemes where appropriate. Reported iteration counts are printed together with (γmin,γmax)(\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}) and ρmin\rho_{\min} to expose conditioning; DC modes are pinned exactly in Fourier space for strict mass conservation. Reversible channels are implemented as shift operators in phase or configuration space and preserve the free energy to machine precision. Poisson and KKT solves use preconditioned conjugate gradients on the mean-zero subspace, with relative residual 101010^{-10} in the energy norm; the same discrete gradient and divergence are used in forward and adjoint roles to preserve the ρ\rho-weighted pairing. The mean-zero gauge is enforced by zeroing the DC mode at each solve.

The results are verified across independent random seeds, grid resolutions, and parameter sweeps. All reported quantities are reproducible within standard double-precision floating point tolerance.

Reproducibility

Each script runs independently and produces a single console log summarising the diagnostics. No plots are generated or required. Running all scripts in sequence reproduces the complete numerical verification suite supporting the analytical results of this work. All source files are archived at the GitHub repository above.

Appendix G Diagnostics and falsifiers

We certify the axioms and the necessity results by five console dials reproduced by 00_axiom_diagnostics.py. All evaluations use conservative divergence form, a 2/3 spectral projector on nonlinear operations, subspace consistent pairings for the equality certificate, and exact mass from the zero Fourier mode. Boundary and regularity classes are as in Appendices  A-B.

G.1 Equality dial with refinement

We measure the gap

Δeq 2Pirrσ˙virr,μ2,\Delta_{\mathrm{eq}}\;\equiv\;2\,P_{\mathrm{irr}}\,\dot{\sigma}\;-\;\langle v_{\mathrm{irr}},\mu\rangle^{2},

which must converge to zero under mesh refinement if the local quadratic metric and the steepest descent direction hold. Typical output:

¯¯== Equality dial with refinement (1D, P-consistent) ==
¯¯N=  512 | ... | gap=-1.527e-02 | ... | PASS
¯¯N= 1024 | ... | gap=-7.235e-03 | ... | PASS
¯¯N= 2048 | ... | gap=-3.518e-03 | ... | PASS
¯

Run constants. Scripts print ρmin\rho_{\min}, (γmin,γmax)(\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}), measured κmin\kappa_{\min}, equality gap, PR\mathrm{PR}, and iteration counts, for example:

¯¯state: min rho=7.075e-01 | G:[gmin=5.00e-01,gmax=1.40e+00] |
¯¯
¯¯kappa_min=1.00e+00 kappa_min=1.00e+00
¯

A second backend confirms the equality on a conservative finite-volume KKT scheme (02_metriplectic_equivalence_1d_periodic_kkt.py).

The gap decays like O(dx) and the mass integral is at machine zero, certifying Proposition 2.2 and the cost-entropy equality certificate.

G.2 Nonlocal falsifier

We replace μ\nabla\mu by a smoothed field before forming jj, keep PirrP_{\mathrm{irr}} local, and remeasure the equality. The certificate fails by order one margins:

¯¯== Nonlocal falsifier sweep (1D, P-consistent Pirr) ==
¯¯N=4096 | sigma=0.20 | ... | gap=2.205416e-01 | VIOLATES equality
¯¯N=4096 | sigma=0.60 | ... | gap=4.926686e-01 | VIOLATES equality
¯¯N=4096 | sigma=0.90 | ... | gap=2.274482e-01 | VIOLATES equality
¯¯N=4096 | sigma=1.20 | ... | gap=6.519462e-02 | VIOLATES equality
¯

Hence local quadratic dissipation is required within scope, matching A3 and the destructive side of Proposition 2.2.

G.3 Conservative vs non conservative tripwire

We contrast a conservative update with a non conservative surrogate. The latter leaks mass:

¯¯== Conservative vs non conservative tripwire (1D, P-consistent) ==
¯¯Integral v_cons dx(k0) = -7.051-18 expected near 0
¯¯Integral w_non  dx(k0) = 4.162e-03   non-zero indicates mass leak
¯¯
¯

This guards A1 at the discrete level and rules out false positives from boundary or aliasing artefacts.

G.4 No-work certificate for A6

A nonzero reading arises only if antisymmetry or the weighted Liouville constraint is broken at the current ρ\rho.

¯¯== Reversible no-work identity (2D) ==
¯¯PR = 0.000e+00 | relative = 0.000e+00 | ||v_rev||2 = 4.213e-14 | PASS
¯

Dial outcomes and causes.

Outcome Primary cause at fixed ρ\rho
PR0\mathrm{PR}\approx 0 with constant JJ and exact mass Within A6 no-work cone
PR0\mathrm{PR}\neq 0 under same setup JJJ^{\top}\neq-J or (ρJ)0\nabla\!\cdot(\rho J)\neq 0

This certifies Proposition 2.3 and the weighted Liouville identity of Appendix B.

G.5 Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} orthogonality readout

We report the weighted pairing vrev,ϕirrHρ1\langle v_{\mathrm{rev}},\,\phi_{\mathrm{irr}}\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}} where ρϕirr=virr\mathcal{L}_{\rho}\phi_{\mathrm{irr}}=v_{\mathrm{irr}}:

¯¯== Hˆ{-1}_rho orthogonality (1D) ==
¯¯< v_rev , phi_irr >_{H-1(rho)} = 3.2e-13 | PASS
¯

Machine-zero values certify metriplectic orthogonality under Proposition 2.4.

G.6 Coarse grain commutator scaling

We report the normalised commutator

rel()=C(𝒬(ρ))𝒬(Cρ)2𝒬(ρ)2,andrel()2.\mathrm{rel}(\ell)\;=\;\frac{\|C_{\ell}(\mathcal{Q}(\rho))-\mathcal{Q}(C_{\ell}\rho)\|_{2}}{\|\mathcal{Q}(\rho)\|_{2}},\quad\text{and}\quad\frac{\mathrm{rel}(\ell)}{\ell^{2}}.

For small \ell the ratio stabilises in a narrow band (grid-independent to leading order), in line with Appendix C:

¯¯== Coarse-grain commutator scaling (1D, P-consistent, normalised) ==
¯¯N=4096 | ell=0.10 | ... | (rel)/ellˆ2 = 2.500e+00
¯¯N=4096 | ell=0.20 | ... | (rel)/ellˆ2 = 1.602e+00
¯

G.7 Probe identifiability

A modest probe set yields a well conditioned Gram matrix for GG:

¯¯== Probe identifiability of G (1D) ==
¯¯basis size = 24, min sing = 2.421e+00, max sing = 4.903e+02,
¯¯cond(B) = 2.025e+02 identifiability verdict = PASS
¯

This supports Proposition 2.1 on recoverability of the quadratic action of GG. For separation at a fixed ρ\rho one may take small Fourier probe sets of size m=2d+2m=2d+2 in d=1,2,3d=1,2,3; identifiability is up to the ellipticity window (γmin,γmax)(\gamma_{\min},\gamma_{\max}).

Run metadata.

State health for the run shown: min rho = 7.075e-01, min G = 5.000e-01. Script: 00_axiom_diagnostics.py. All excerpts above are from a single execution of the public archive.

Catalogue of tests used in this section.
  1. (T1)

    Baseline conservative suite (Appendix F): probe-FFT dispersion fits ω2c2k2\omega^{2}\sim c^{2}k^{2}, anisotropy ellipse fits under cxcyc_{x}\neq c_{y}, bounded energy drift with leapfrog, and a time-reversal round trip. Purpose: establish that the reversible plumbing behaves as intended before metriplectic checks.

  2. (T2)

    Equality and inequality on 1D periodic grids (Appendix F): face-centred Lρ,GL_{\rho,G} and a sparse KKT solve give (i) equality 𝒞min=σ˙/2\mathcal{C}_{\min}=\dot{\sigma}/2 on the gradient-flow ray v0=Lρ,Gμv_{0}=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu using the exact mean-zero potential, and (ii) the global inequality v,μ22𝒞minσ˙\langle v,\mu\rangle^{2}\leq 2\,\mathcal{C}_{\min}\dot{\sigma} for random admissible v=Lρ,Gψv=-\,L_{\rho,G}\psi, reported via the ratio \mathcal{R} and alignment angles.

  3. (T3)

    Path-entropy invariance, batch (Appendix F): event-stop at the first F(t)=FtargetF(t)=F_{\mathrm{target}} shows 0tσ˙𝑑t=F(0)Ftarget\int_{0}^{t_{\star}}\dot{\sigma}\,dt=F(0)-F_{\mathrm{target}} independent of reversible drift JJ; multiple amplitudes and two spatial patterns confirm invariance across paths.

  4. (T4)

    Heat-only identity and phase-blindness (Appendix F): exact spectral heat with per-step DC pin verifies ΔF=σ˙𝑑t\Delta F=\int\dot{\sigma}\,dt with rectangle-rule and midpoint variants, mass is exact by construction, and duplicate runs with distinct labels remain identical (phase-blindness).

  5. (T5)

    Reversible stirring plus heat, identity on GG-steps (Appendix F): interleave exact shifts ρ(x)ρ(xvΔt)\rho(x)\mapsto\rho(x-v\,\Delta t) with heat; accumulate σ˙\dot{\sigma} only on GG-steps and confirm ΔF=σ˙𝑑t\Delta F=\int\dot{\sigma}\,dt to tolerance.

  6. (T6)

    Commuting-triangle consistency (Appendix F): bundles the reversible shifts, dissipative steps, and the constrained KKT solve to check that the instantaneous scalars and integrated identities are insensitive to channel ordering within solver tolerance; includes a small-kk curvature oracle at uniform density.

G.8 Quantities computed at a fixed state

Let ρ\rho be a fixed strictly positive density, GG be symmetric positive, and FF be convex. We evaluate:

  1. (i)

    Entropy production σ˙(ρ)=ρ(μ)G(μ)𝑑x\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=\int\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\mu)\,dx.

  2. (ii)

    Curvature κmin(ρ)\kappa_{\min}(\rho) via the Rayleigh problem (E.1), implemented on the mean-zero subspace under the Hρ1H^{-1}_{\rho} pairing [6, 7, 9].

  3. (iii)

    Minimal cost 𝒞min(ρ;v)\mathcal{C}_{\min}(\rho;v) by solving Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v with Lρ,Gϕ(ρGϕ)L_{\rho,G}\phi\equiv-\,\nabla\!\cdot(\rho G\nabla\phi), then evaluating the energy form in (E). For the equality case we take v0=Lρ,Gμv_{0}=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu.

Discretisations share the same gradient and divergence to preserve adjointness for the ρ\rho-weighted inner product. Periodic boxes use spectral derivatives with two-thirds de-aliasing; one-dimensional tests use conservative finite differences that are symmetric under the discrete Lρ2L^{2}_{\rho} pairing. All KKT potentials are computed and paired on the same grid and mean-zero subspace, so R=cos2θρ,GR=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G} is evaluated as a single Hilbert-space cosine without gauge drift.

G.9 Alignment angle and near-equalities

Given vv and its KKT potential ϕ\phi solving Lρ,Gϕ=v-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi=v, define

cosθρ,Gϕ,μρ,Gϕρ,Gμρ,G,a,bρ,G=ΩρaGb𝑑x.\cos\theta_{\rho,G}\equiv\frac{\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\mu\rangle_{\rho,G}}{\|\nabla\phi\|_{\rho,G}\,\|\nabla\mu\|_{\rho,G}},\qquad\langle a,b\rangle_{\rho,G}=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,a^{\!\top}G\,b\,dx.

Lemma 3.4 gives the identity (ρ;v)=cos2θρ,G\mathcal{R}(\rho;v)=\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}, so near-equalities correspond to small angles between ϕ\nabla\phi and μ\nabla\mu in the (ρ,G)(\rho,G) metric. For intuition we also report the Wasserstein-tangent proxy

cosϑv,v0Hρ1vHρ1v0Hρ1,v0Lρ,Gμ,\cos\vartheta\equiv\frac{\langle v,\,v_{0}\rangle_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}}{\|v\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}\,\|v_{0}\|_{H^{-1}_{\rho}}},\qquad v_{0}\equiv-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu,

which coincides with θρ,G\theta_{\rho,G} when G=IG=I and is equivalent up to ellipticity constants otherwise. When GG is uniformly elliptic, γminψρ2ψρ,G2γmaxψρ2\gamma_{\min}\|\nabla\psi\|^{2}_{\rho}\leq\|\nabla\psi\|^{2}_{\rho,G}\leq\gamma_{\max}\|\nabla\psi\|^{2}_{\rho}, hence

γminγmaxcos2θρ,Gcos2ϑγmaxγmincos2θρ,G.\frac{\gamma_{\min}}{\gamma_{\max}}\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}\ \leq\ \cos^{2}\vartheta\ \leq\ \frac{\gamma_{\max}}{\gamma_{\min}}\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G}.

G.10 Protocols and state families

Two state families are used.

  • Synthetic snapshots. Smooth positive fields are constructed by filtering Gaussian samples in Fourier space and renormalising mass to one, optionally followed by a short relaxation under the dissipative channel to generate representative structure while preserving positivity. Positivity is maintained either by a parametrisation ρ=ρmin+eϑ\rho=\rho_{\min}+e^{\vartheta} during transient steps or by clipping at machine epsilon for fixed-state evaluations.

  • Flow snapshots. Short segments of the metriplectic flow (2.5) with J=0J=0 and constant GG produce a sequence of fixed states at which the three scalars are evaluated.

Unless noted, two-dimensional runs use spectral derivatives with two-thirds de-aliasing; one-dimensional referee tests use N{128,256,512,1024}N\in\{128,256,512,1024\} with conservative finite differences. Scripts print reproducible configuration summaries.

G.11 Headline observations

Across state families and grids we observe:

  1. (O1)

    Equality on the gradient-flow ray. For v=v0=Lρ,Gμv=v_{0}=-\,L_{\rho,G}\mu the ratio \mathcal{R} matches one to solver tolerance, confirming Proposition 3.1. See (T2).

  2. (O2)

    Global inequality for random tangents. For random admissible v=Lρ,Gψv=-\,L_{\rho,G}\psi, the ratio \mathcal{R} lies below one, with a tight envelope given by cos2θρ,G\cos^{2}\theta_{\rho,G} as predicted by Lemma 3.4. See (T2).

  3. (O3)

    Curvature coercivity and uniform anchor. The Rayleigh estimate (3.3) is stable across grids and state families; near uniformity the measured smallest curvature agrees with Proposition 3.5. The small-kk oracle at ρ\rho\equiv const is exercised in (T6).

  4. (O4)

    Identity under composition. The instantaneous scalars and integrated identities are insensitive, within solver tolerance, to the ordering of reversible shifts, dissipative steps, and the KKT solve. See (T6).

G.12 Path-entropy invariance under reversible drift

Fix a free energy F[ρ]F[\rho] with chemical potential μ=δF/δρ\mu=\delta F/\delta\rho, a symmetric positive GG, and an antisymmetric JJ in the ρ\rho-weighted pairing. Consider

tρ=(ρ(Jμ+Gμ)),σ˙(ρ)=Ωρ(μ)G(μ)𝑑x.\partial_{t}\rho=\nabla\!\cdot\big(\rho\,(J\nabla\mu+G\nabla\mu)\big),\qquad\dot{\sigma}(\rho)=\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\mu)\,dx.

Under periodic or no-flux boundaries and J=JJ^{\top}=-J (pointwise or in Lρ2L^{2}_{\rho}),

ddtF[ρ(t)]=μ,tρ=Ωρ(μ)G(μ)𝑑xdFdt=σ˙(ρ).\frac{d}{dt}F[\rho(t)]=\langle\mu,\,\partial_{t}\rho\rangle=-\int_{\Omega}\rho\,(\nabla\mu)^{\!\top}G(\nabla\mu)\,dx\quad\Rightarrow\quad\frac{dF}{dt}=-\dot{\sigma}(\rho).

Hence for any trajectory that first hits a target level FtargetF_{\mathrm{target}},

0tσ˙(ρ(t))𝑑t=F[ρ(0)]Ftarget,\int_{0}^{t_{\star}}\dot{\sigma}(\rho(t))\,dt=F[\rho(0)]-F_{\mathrm{target}},

which is independent of JJ. In particular, the total dissipative entropy to reach the same FtargetF_{\mathrm{target}} is path-independent across reversible drifts that are antisymmetric in the stated sense.

{remarkbox}
Remark (Numerical protocol and result).

We implement an event stop at the first crossing F(t)=FtargetF(t)=F_{\mathrm{target}} with linear interpolation of tt and σ˙\dot{\sigma}. On 1922192^{2} periodic grids with G=IG=I, λ=0\lambda=0, and reversible fields JJ of amplitudes 0,2,5,100,2,5,10 in two spatial modes, batch runs give

|Stotal(J)Stotal(0)|[1013, 105],\bigl|S_{\mathrm{total}}(J)-S_{\mathrm{total}}(0)\bigr|\in[10^{-13},\,10^{-5}],

with a median near 10610^{-6}, while arrival times tt_{\star} do differ across JJ. For every run, StotalF(0)FtargetS_{\mathrm{total}}\approx F(0)-F_{\mathrm{target}} to within the reported solver tolerance. See (T3) for the batch harness, (T4) for the heat-only oracle, and (T5) for interleaved reversible-dissipative evolutions with σ˙\dot{\sigma} accumulated only on GG-steps.

G.13 Numerical details and tolerances

Rayleigh and Poisson solves terminate at relative residual 101010^{-10} unless stated. Spectral derivatives use two-thirds de-aliasing in two dimensions. One-dimensional conservative operators preserve symmetry under the discrete Lρ2L^{2}_{\rho} inner product. Random seeds, grid sizes, and tolerances are printed by each script. Full filenames are listed in Appendix F.

Complementarity and outlook.

The reversible bracket and Fisher curvature in the companion paper provide the geometric skeleton; the present analysis supplies the dissipative musculature. Both operate under the same local axioms and diagnostics, and both admit falsifiers that fail once the geometry is altered. Taken together they delineate the minimal reversible-irreversible split consistent with information-geometric curvature, without asserting global unification or uniqueness beyond the stated scope.

These are necessity statements within the axioms; we do not extrapolate beyond the stated function spaces, ellipticity bounds, or boundary class.

Appendix H Additional consistency checks

Log-Sobolev curvature and relaxation rate

Setting. We consider the heat flow tρ=Δρ\partial_{t}\rho=\Delta\rho on the periodic domain 𝕋L\mathbb{T}_{L} at fixed λ=0\lambda=0. At each time we compute the entropy gap F(t)FF(t)-F_{\infty} and the Fisher information I(t)=Ω|xρ|2/ρ𝑑xI(t)=\int_{\Omega}|\partial_{x}\rho|^{2}/\rho\,dx. On the LL-periodic box with unit mass and λ=0\lambda=0, the minimiser is the uniform density ρ¯=1/L\bar{\rho}=1/L and F=𝕋Lρ¯logρ¯dx=logLF_{\infty}=\int_{\mathbb{T}_{L}}\bar{\rho}\log\bar{\rho}\,dx=-\log L.

The local log-Sobolev estimator is

κinst(t)=I(t)2(F(t)F),κ^=mint[0.05T,T]κinst(t).\kappa_{\mathrm{inst}}(t)=\frac{I(t)}{2(F(t)-F_{\infty})},\qquad\widehat{\kappa}=\min_{t\in[0.05T,T]}\kappa_{\mathrm{inst}}(t).

We also fit the late-time exponential decay rate rfitr_{\mathrm{fit}} of F(t)FF(t)-F_{\infty}. Observation. For a smooth mixed-mode initial ρ\rho on 𝕋40\mathbb{T}_{40} with N=512N=512 and dt=2×103dt=2\times 10^{-3}, we obtain κ^2.47×102\widehat{\kappa}\simeq 2.47\times 10^{-2} and rfit4.93×102r_{\mathrm{fit}}\simeq 4.93\times 10^{-2}, satisfying rfit2κ^r_{\mathrm{fit}}\approx 2\widehat{\kappa} to numerical precision. Interpretation.

This shows within the present discretisation that the empirically measured curvature controls the exponential relaxation of F(t)F(t), as predicted by the log-Sobolev bound F(t)F(F(0)F)e2κtF(t)-F_{\infty}\leq(F(0)-F_{\infty})e^{-2\kappa t}. No new assertion is made beyond consistency between the measured curvature and the observed relaxation rate.

Algorithm (metric tomography, up to a scalar).

Select mm band-separated probes viv_{i}; solve Lρ,Gϕi=vi-\,L_{\rho,G}\phi_{i}=v_{i} on the mean-zero subspace; form Hij=ϕi,ϕjρ,G=ρϕiGϕjdxH_{ij}=\langle\nabla\phi_{i},\nabla\phi_{j}\rangle_{\rho,G}=\!\int\rho\,\nabla\phi_{i}^{\!\top}G\,\nabla\phi_{j}\,dx. With g=(g11,2g12,g22)g=(g_{11},2g_{12},g_{22}) and Hij=AijgH_{ij}=A_{ij}\cdot g, least-squares recovers gg up to a global scale. We report shellwise condition numbers and uncertainty bands.

Talagrand-type transport inequality

Setting. Along the same heat-flow trajectory as above, we computed the squared Wasserstein distance W22(t)W_{2}^{2}(t) between ρ(t)\rho(t) and the uniform density via the monotone rearrangement map T(x)=LFρ(x)T(x)=LF_{\rho}(x) with cumulative distribution Fρ(x)=0xρ(y)𝑑yF_{\rho}(x)=\int_{0}^{x}\rho(y)\,dy. Using the curvature estimate κ^\widehat{\kappa} from the previous item, the predicted transport-entropy constant is Cpred=1/κ^C_{\mathrm{pred}}=1/\widehat{\kappa}. Observation. For all times t0.2Tt\geq 0.2T, the inequality

W22(t)Cpred(F(t)F)W_{2}^{2}(t)\;\leq\;C_{\mathrm{pred}}\,(F(t)-F_{\infty})

is satisfied with negative slack maxt[W22Cpred(FF)]6.7×104\max_{t}[W_{2}^{2}-C_{\mathrm{pred}}(F-F_{\infty})]\approx-6.7\times 10^{-4}. Interpretation. Within the accuracy of the pseudospectral scheme and the rearrangement implementation, the transport-entropy relation holds when the constant is chosen from the independently measured curvature.

This supports that the same κ\kappa governs both relaxation and transport in this geometry, without asserting new analytic results. This choice coincides with κmin(ρ)\kappa_{\min}(\rho) for the uniform anchor used in the main text.

Relaxation spectrum and curvature spectrum

Setting. For single-mode perturbations ρ(x,0)=ρbar(1+εcoskphysx)\rho(x,0)=\rho_{\mathrm{bar}}(1+\varepsilon\cos k_{\mathrm{phys}}x) with small ε\varepsilon, we evolved the heat flow and measured (i) the exponential decay rate rfit(k)r_{\mathrm{fit}}(k) of the entropy gap and (ii) the curvature estimate κ^(k)=mediantI/(2(FF))\widehat{\kappa}(k)=\mathrm{median}_{t}\,I/(2(F-F_{\infty})). The linear theory predicts rtheory=2kphys2r_{\mathrm{theory}}=2k_{\mathrm{phys}}^{2} and κ(k)=kphys2\kappa(k)=k_{\mathrm{phys}}^{2}. Observation. For k=15k=1\dots 5 on 𝕋40\mathbb{T}_{40}, we find relative errors |rfit2k2|/(2k2)104|r_{\mathrm{fit}}-2k^{2}|/(2k^{2})\lesssim 10^{-4} and |κ^k2|/k2103|\widehat{\kappa}-k^{2}|/k^{2}\lesssim 10^{-3}, limited by late-time round-off. Interpretation.

The measured relaxation spectrum coincides with the curvature spectrum to numerical precision, confirming that the instantaneous curvature κ(k)\kappa(k) accurately encodes the equilibration rate of each Fourier mode. This agreement is a direct consistency check of the theoretical identification between curvature and dissipation in the reversible-dissipative geometry.

Acknowledgements

No external funding was received. All work was produced independently without affiliation.

Author’s email is contact@nomogenetics.com.

References

  • Dunkley [2025] J. R. Dunkley. The Converse Madelung Question: Schrödinger Equation from Minimal Axioms. arXiv:2511.03552 (2025).
  • Morrison [1986] P. J. Morrison. A paradigm for joined Hamiltonian and dissipative systems. Physica D 18, 410-419 (1986).
  • Grmela and Öttinger [1997] M. Grmela and H. C. Öttinger. Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. I. Development of a general formalism. Phys. Rev. E 56, 6620-6632 (1997).
  • Öttinger [2005] H. C. Öttinger. Beyond Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Wiley (2005).
  • Mielke, Peletier and Renger [2014] A. Mielke, M. A. Peletier, and D. R. M. Renger. On the relation between gradient flows and the GENERIC formalism. J. Non-Equil. Thermodyn. 39(4), 149-171 (2014).
  • Jordan, Kinderlehrer and Otto [1998] R. Jordan, D. Kinderlehrer, and F. Otto. The variational formulation of the Fokker-Planck equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 29, 1-17 (1998).
  • Villani [2003] C. Villani. Topics in Optimal Transportation. American Mathematical Society (2003).
  • Villani [2009] C. Villani. Optimal Transport: Old and New. Springer (2009).
  • Ambrosio, Gigli and Savaré [2011] L. Ambrosio, N. Gigli, and G. Savaré. Calculus and heat flow in metric measure spaces and applications to spaces with Ricci bounds from below. Invent. Math. 185(2), 391-450 (2011).
  • Erbar and Maas [2012] M. Erbar and J. Maas. Ricci curvature of finite Markov chains via convexity of the entropy. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 206(3), 997-1038 (2012).
  • Carlen and Maas [2017] E. A. Carlen and J. Maas. Gradient flow and entropy inequalities for quantum Markov semigroups with detailed balance. J. Funct. Anal. 273(5), 1810-1869 (2017).
  • Zhong and DeWeese [2024] A. Zhong and M. R. DeWeese. Beyond linear response: Equivalence between thermodynamic geometry and optimal transport. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 057102 (2024). Preprint arXiv:2404.01286.
  • Benamou and Brenier [2000] J. D. Benamou and Y. Brenier. A computational fluid mechanics solution to the Monge-Kantorovich mass transfer problem. Numer. Math. 84, 375-393 (2000).
  • Otto [2001] F. Otto. The geometry of dissipative evolution equations: the porous medium equation as a gradient flow. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 57, 287-319 (2001).
  • McCann [1997] R. J. McCann. A convexity principle for interacting gases. Adv. Math. 128, 153-179 (1997).
  • Ambrosio et al. [2008] L. Ambrosio, N. Gigli, and G. Savaré. Gradient Flows in Metric Spaces and in the Space of Probability Measures, 2nd ed. Birkhäuser (2008).
  • Sandier and Serfaty [2004] E. Sandier and S. Serfaty. Gamma-convergence of gradient flows with applications to Ginzburg-Landau. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 57, 1627-1672 (2004).
  • Serfaty [2011] S. Serfaty. Gamma-convergence of gradient flows on Hilbert and metric spaces and applications. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. A 31(4), 1427-1451 (2011).
  • Gross [1975] L. Gross. Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities. Amer. J. Math. 97, 1061-1083 (1975).
  • Bakry and Émery [1985] D. Bakry and M. Émery. Diffusions hypercontractives. In: Séminaire de probabilités XIX 1983/84, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1123, Springer, pp. 177-206 (1985).
  • Otto and Villani [2000] F. Otto and Cédric Villani. Generalization of an inequality by Talagrand and links with the logarithmic Sobolev inequality. J. Funct. Anal. 173, 361-400 (2000).
  • Lott and Villani [2009] J. Lott and Cédric Villani. Ricci curvature for metric-measure spaces via optimal transport. Ann. Math. 169, 903-991 (2009).
  • Sturm [2006a] K.-T. Sturm. On the geometry of metric measure spaces. I. Acta Math. 196, 65-131 (2006).
  • Sturm [2006b] K.-T. Sturm. On the geometry of metric measure spaces. II. Acta Math. 196, 133-177 (2006).
  • Maas [2011] J. Maas. Gradient flows of the entropy for finite Markov chains. J. Funct. Anal. 261(8), 2250-2292 (2011).
  • Mielke [2013] A. Mielke. Geodesic convexity of the relative entropy in reversible Markov chains. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 48, 1-31 (2013).
  • Liero et al. [2018] M. Liero, A. Mielke, and G. Savaré. Optimal transport in competition with reaction: the Hellinger-Kantorovich distance. Invent. Math. 211, 969-1117 (2018).
  • Chizat et al. [2018] L. Chizat, G. Peyré, B. Schmitzer, and François-Xavier Vialard. Unbalanced optimal transport: dynamic and Kantorovich formulations. J. Funct. Anal. 274(11), 3090-3123 (2018).
  • Crooks [2007] G. E. Crooks. Measuring thermodynamic length. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 100602 (2007).
  • Sivak and Crooks [2012] D. A. Sivak and G. E. Crooks. Thermodynamic metrics and optimal paths. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 190602 (2012).
  • Salamon et al. [1983] P. Salamon, J. Nulton, and R. S. Berry. Minimum entropy production principle for steady-state heat conduction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1127-1130 (1983).
  • Bloch et al. [1996] A. M. Bloch, P. S. Krishnaprasad, J. E. Marsden, and T. S. Ratiu. The Euler-Poincaré equations and double bracket dissipation. Commun. Math. Phys. 175, 1-42 (1996).
  • Marsden and Ratiu [1994] J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu. Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry. Springer (1994).
  • Morrison and Greene [1980] P. J. Morrison and J. M. Greene. Noncanonical Hamiltonian density formulation of hydrodynamics and ideal magnetohydrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 790-794 (1980).
  • Frieden and Soffer [1995] B. R. Frieden and B. H. Soffer. Lagrangians of physics and the game of Fisher-information transfer. Phys. Rev. E 52, 2274-2286 (1995).
  • Reginatto [1998] M. Reginatto. Derivation of the equations of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics using the principle of minimum Fisher information. Phys. Rev. A 58, 1775-1778 (1998) ; erratum Phys. Rev. A 60, 1730 (1999).
  • Rao [1945] C. R. Rao. Information and the accuracy attainable in the estimation of statistical parameters. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 37, 81-91 (1945).
  • Amari and Nagaoka [2000] S. Amari and H. Nagaoka. Methods of Information Geometry. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, vol. 191 (American Mathematical Society and Oxford University Press, 2000). Translated from the 1993 Japanese edition by Daishi Harada.
  • DeWitt [1967] B. S. DeWitt. Quantum theory of gravity. I. The canonical theory. Phys. Rev. 160, 1113-1148 (1967).
  • Caticha [2011] A. Caticha. Entropic dynamics, time and quantum theory. J. Phys. A 44, 225303 (2011).
  • Verlinde [2011] E. P. Verlinde. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. J. High Energy Phys. 1104, 029 (2011).