OpenAI 的 Navier-Stokes 证明对现实世界意味着什么？

September 18, 2026 3 min read Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm What does OpenAI’s blockbuster Navier-Stokes proof mean for the real world? OpenAI’s claimed proof of the Navier-Stokes problem is a mathematical tour de force, but any real-world applications may be years away—if they ever arrive at all By Adam Kovac edited by Lee Billings Getty Images/Viaframe Love math? Sign up for our weekly newsletter Proof Positive OpenAI may have claimed to have solved a million-dollar math problem that’s fundamental to lots of modern technology, but don’t expect anything to change—at least, not immediately. Earlier this month OpenAI claimed one of its internal models had proved that the Navier-Stokes equations, which are used to model the motions of fluids, break down and yield nonsensical answers in certain scenarios. The equations can be thought of as “essentially Newton’s second law, applied to a little fluid parcel,” says Justin Beroz, CEO of ReynKo, an engineering company that specializes in turbulence. Regardless of whether OpenAI can actually take the credit for solving the problem, the notion that an artificial intelligence has apparently succeeded where humans have, for so long, failed is earth-shattering for mathematicians. That isn’t the case for engineers, however, say several experts working in fluid dynamics. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The Navier-Stokes equations are used to great success in a wide array of applications, such as calculating airflow over a jet’s wings, forecasting weather patterns and determining how blood flows through biomedical devices. Even so, mathematicians have spent nearly 200 years struggling to prove that the models fully correspond with reality. At very small scales, they have suspected, the equations might predict something physically impossible: fluids that accelerate to infinite speeds. Still, as to how much this affects engineering, Beroz says, in short, “not much.” “The longer answer is a bit more nuanced,” he says. The knowledge that the equations break down at a certain point doesn’t really change how they will be used because the equations themselves are only an approximation of how a fluid will react, says Florian Schäfer, an assistant professor at New York University. What really matters, he says, is that this approximation is good enough that any flaws are trivial. “The Navier-Stokes equations have a certain regime of validity in which we think that they're basically enough at describing what the physics will do,” Schäfer says. OpenAI’s proof does provide an example in which the equations allow a fluid to hit an infinite velocity, but the scenario is so contrived that it’s almost certainly unlikely to have any direct relevance to any physical system in the real world. The methods the large language model (LLM) marshaled to achieve its result could in principle, offer fresh insights for engineers and mathematicians alike, says Spencer Bryngelson, an adjunct professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Proving a breakdown in Navier-Stokes could “have many knock-on effects that are useful, even though it’s unclear sometimes how those knock-on effects will happen,” Bryngelson says. One place where those effects could eventually be felt is in improved computer simulations, Beroz says. “We have plenty of things where we deal with drag and lift and design these things, but the key thing is: it’s always done experimentally,” he says, because the mathematics of fluid dynamics are notoriously complicated. “We don’t have good computational tools to simulate these things in advance, and this really separates fluid engineering from other kinds of engineering.” As an example, Beroz points to aerospace design, in which the development cycle of a new airplane can take a decade and cost billions of dollars. “The kicker is that roughly half the time and half the cost is spent building, testing or finding physical prototypes in the wind tunnel—and the only reason you’re doing that is that the software sucks,” he says. The upshot is that, while any formal proof of a breakdown in Navier-Stokes may not have any immediate effects on engineers, it’s hard to predict how this knowledge will be implemented in the future. Basic scientific research can lead to dramatic and unforeseen applications and technologies years down the line. “This is clearly an example where the equations do not do what the physics would do, and then that might guide us to a new way of understanding in what sense and in what regimes these equations are incomplete,” Schäfer says. Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community. When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production. Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber Thank you, Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American Subscribe