1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \def\bm#1{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}} %--- vector (bold face)

3: \usepackage{pslatex}

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \title{Strong Anisotropic MHD Turbulence with Cross Helicity}

9: \author{Benjamin D. G. Chandran}

10: \email{benjamin.chandran@unh.edu} 

11: \affil{Space Science Center and

12: Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire}

13: 

14: \begin{abstract}

15: This paper proposes a new phenomenology for strong incompressible MHD

16: turbulence with nonzero cross helicity. This phenomenology is then

17: developed into a quantitative Fokker-Planck model that describes the

18: time evolution of the anisotropic power spectra of the fluctuations

19: propagating parallel and anti-parallel to the background magnetic

20: field~$\bm{B}_0$.  It is found that in steady state the power spectra

21: of the magnetic field and total energy are steeper than

22: $k_\perp^{-5/3}$ and become increasingly steep as $C/{\cal E}$

23: increases, where $C=\displaystyle \int d^3\! x \; \bm{v}\cdot\bm{B}$

24: is the cross helicity, ${\cal E}$ is the fluctuation energy, and

25: $k_\perp$ is the wavevector component perpendicular to~$\bm{B}_0$.

26: Increasing $C$ with fixed ${\cal E}$ increases the time required for

27: energy to cascade to smaller scales, reduces the cascade power,

28: and increases the anisotropy of the small-scale

29: fluctuations. The implications of these results for the solar wind and

30: solar corona are discussed in some detail.

31: \end{abstract}

32: \keywords{turbulence --- magnetic fields --- magnetohydrodynamics

33: --- solar wind --- solar corona --- solar flares}

34: 

35: \maketitle

36: 

37: \section{Introduction}

38: 

39: Much of our current understanding of incompressible

40: magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence has its roots in the pioneering

41: work of Iroshnikov~(1963) and Kraichnan~(1965). These studies

42: emphasized the important fact that Alfv\'en waves travelling in the

43: same direction along a background magnetic field do not interact with

44: one another and explained how one can think of the cascade of energy

45: to small scales as resulting from collisions between oppositely

46: directed Alfv\'en wave packets.  They also argued that in the absence

47: of a mean magnetic field, the magnetic field of the energy-containing

48: eddies at scale~$L$ affects fluctuations on scales~$\ll L$ much in the

49: same way as would a truly uniform mean magnetic field.

50: 

51: Another foundation of our current understanding is the finding that

52: MHD turbulence is inherently anisotropic.  Montgomery \& Turner~(1981)

53: and Shebalin, Matthaeus, \& Montgomery~(1983) showed that a strong

54: uniform mean magnetic field~$\bm{B}_0$ inhibits the cascade of energy

55: to small scales measured in the direction parallel to~$\bm{B}_0$. This

56: early work was substantially elaborated upon by Higdon~(1984),

57: Goldreich \& Sridhar~(1995, 1997), Montgomery \& Matthaeus~(1995), Ng

58: \& Bhattacharjee~(1996, 1997), Galtier et al~(2000), Cho \&

59: Lazarian~(2003), Oughton et al~(2006), and many others. For example,

60: Cho \& Vishniac (2000) used numerical simulations to show that when

61: the fluctuating magnetic field~$\delta B$ is $\ga B_0$ the small-scale

62: turbulent eddies become elongated along the local magnetic field

63: direction.  Goldreich \& Sridhar (1995) introduced the important and

64: influential idea of ``critical balance,'' which holds that at each

65: scale the linear wave period for the bulk of the fluctuation energy is

66: comparable to the time for the fluctuation energy to cascade to

67: smaller scales. Goldreich \& Sridhar (1995, 1997), Maron \&

68: Goldreich~(2001), and Lithwick \& Goldreich~(2001) clarified a number

69: of important physical processes in anisotropic MHD turbulence and used

70: the concept of critical balance to determine the ratio of the

71: dimensions of turbulent eddies in the directions parallel and

72: perpendicular to the local magnetic field.

73: 

74: Over the last several years, research on MHD turbulence has been

75: proceeding along several different lines. For example, one group of

76: studies has attempted to determine the power spectrum, intermittency,

77: and anisotropy of strong incompressible MHD turbulence using direct

78: numerical simulations. (See, e.g., Cho \& Vishniac 2000, M\"uller \&

79: Biskamp 2000, Maron \& Goldreich 2001, Cho et~al~2002, Haugen

80: et~al~2004, Muller \& Grappin~2005, Mininni \& Pouquet 2007, Perez \&

81: Boldyrev 2008).  Another series of papers has explored the properties

82: of anisotropic turbulence in weakly collisional magnetized plasmas

83: using gyrokinetics, a low-frequency expansion of the Vlasov equation

84: that averages over the gyromotion of the particles.  (Howes et

85: al~2006, 2007a, 2007b; Schekochihin et al 2007). These authors

86: investigated the transition between the Alfv\'en-wave cascade and a

87: kinetic-Alfv\'en-wave cascade at length scales of order the proton

88: gyroradius~$\rho_i$, as well as the physics of energy dissipation and

89: entropy production in the low-collisionality regime. Turbulence at

90: scales~$\lesssim \rho_i$ has also been examined both numerically and

91: analytically within the framework of fluid models, in particular Hall

92: MHD and electron MHD.  (Biskamp, Schwarz, \& Drake 1996, Biskamp

93: et~al~1999, Matthaeus et al~2003; Galtier \& Bhattacharjee 2003, 2005;

94: Cho \& Lazarian 2004; Brodin et al~2006, Shukla et al~2006).  Another

95: group of studies has investigated the power spectrum, intermittency,

96: and decay time of compressible MHD turbulence.  (Oughton et al 1995,

97: Stone et~al~1998, Lithwick \& Goldreich~2001, Boldyrev et al~2002,

98: Padoan et al~2004, Elmegreen \& Scalo 2004).  Additional work by

99: Kuznetsov (2001), Cho \& Lazarian (2002, 2003), Chandran (2005), and

100: Luo \& Melrose (2006) has begun to address the way in which Alfv\'en

101: waves, fast magnetosonic waves, and slow magnetosonic waves interact

102: in compressible weak MHD turbulence. Another recent development is the

103: finding that strong incompressible MHD turbulence leads to alternating

104: patches of alignment and anti-alignment between the velocity and

105: magnetic-field fluctuations. (Boldyrev 2005, 2006; Beresnyak \&

106: Lazarian 2006; Mason, Cattaneo, \& Boldyrev 2006; Matthaeus

107: et~al~2007) These studies examined how the degree of local alignment

108: (and anti-alignment) depends upon length scale, as well as the effects of

109: alignment upon the energy cascade time and the power spectrum of the

110: turbulence.

111: 

112: The topic addressed in this paper is the role of cross helicity

113: in incompressible MHD turbulence. The cross helicity is defined as

114: \begin{equation}

115: C = \int d^3\!x \; \bm{v}\cdot {B},

116: \label{eq:defC} 

117: \end{equation} 

118: where $\bm{v}$ is the velocity and~$\bm{B}$ is the magnetic field. The

119: cross helicity is conserved in the absence of dissipation and can be

120: thought of as a measure of the linkages between lines of vorticity and

121: magnetic field lines, both of which are frozen to the fluid flow in

122: the absence of dissipation (Moffatt 1978).  In the presence of a

123: background magnetic field, $\bm{B}_0 = B_0 \hat{z}$, the cross

124: helicity is also a measure of the difference between the energy of

125: fluctuations travelling in the $-z$ and $+ z$ directions.  Dobrowolny,

126: Mangeney, \& Veltri~(1980) showed that MHD turbulence with cross

127: helicity decays to a maximally aligned state, with $\delta \bm{v} =

128: \pm \delta\bm{ B}/\sqrt{4\pi\rho}$, where $\delta \bm{v}$ and $\delta

129: \bm{B}$ are the fluctuating velocity and magnetic field and $\rho$ is

130: the mass density. Different decay rates for the energy and cross

131: helicity were also demonstrated by Matthaeus \& Montgomery~(1980).  In

132: another early study, Grappin, Pouquet, \& L\'eorat~(1983) used a

133: statistical closure, the eddy-damped quasi-normal Markovian (EDQNM)

134: approximation, to study strong 3D incompressible MHD turbulence with

135: cross helicity, assuming isotropic power spectra.  They found that

136: when~$C\neq 0$, the total energy spectrum is steeper than the

137: isotropic Iroshnikov-Kraichnan $k^{-3/2}$~spectrum. Pouquet

138: et~al~(1988) found a similar result in direct numerical simulations of

139: 2D incompressible MHD turbulence.  More recently, Lithwick, Goldreich,

140: \& Sridhar~(2007) and Beresnyak \& Lazarian (2007) addressed the role

141: of cross helicity in strong MHD turbulence taking into account the

142: effects of anisotropy.

143: 

144: This paper presents a new phenomenology for strong, anisotropic,

145: incompressible MHD turbulence with nonzero cross helicity, and is

146: organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:wpc} presents some relevant

147: theoretical background. Section~\ref{sec:theory} introduces the new

148: phenomenology as well as two nonlinear advection-diffusion equations

149: that model the time evolution of the power spectra.  Analytic and

150: numerical solutions to this equation in the weak-turbulence and

151: strong-turbulence regimes are presented in Sections~\ref{sec:weak}

152: and~\ref{sec:strong}.  Section~\ref{sec:strong} also presents a simple

153: phenomenological derivation of the power spectra and anisotropy in

154: strong MHD turbulence.  Section~\ref{sec:trans} presents a numerical

155: solution to the advection-diffusion equation that shows the smooth

156: transition between the weak and strong turbulence

157: regimes. Section~\ref{sec:unequal} addresses the case in which the

158: parallel correlation lengths of waves propagating in opposite

159: directions along the background magnetic field are unequal at the

160: outer scale.  In Section~\ref{sec:solarwind}, the proposed

161: phenomenology is applied to turbulence in the solar wind and solar

162: corona, and in Section~\ref{sec:comp} the results of this work are

163: compared to the recent studies of Lithwick, Goldreich, \&

164: Sridhar~(2007) and Beresnyak \& Lazarian~(2007).

165: 

166: 

167: \section{Energy Cascade from Wave-Packet Collisions}

168: \label{sec:wpc} 

169: 

170: The equations of ideal incompressible MHD can be written

171: \begin{equation} 

172: \frac{\partial \bm{w}^\pm}{\partial t} +\left(

173: \bm{w}^\mp \mp v_{\rm A}\hat{z}  \right) \cdot \nabla \bm{w}^\pm

174: = -\nabla \Pi 

175: \label{eq:mhd} 

176: \end{equation}

177: where $\bm{w}^\pm = \bm{v} \pm (\delta\bm{B}/\sqrt{4\pi \rho})$ are

178: the Elsasser variables, $\bm{v}$ is the fluid velocity, $\delta

179: \bm{B}$ is the magnetic field fluctuation, $\rho$ is the mass density,

180: which is taken to be uniform and constant, $v_A = B_0/\sqrt{4\pi

181:   \rho}$ is the Alfv\'en speed, $\bm{B}_0 = B_0 \hat{z}$ is the mean

182: magnetic field, and $\Pi = (p + B^2/8\pi)/\rho$, which is determined

183: by the incompressibility condition, $\nabla \cdot \bm{w}^\pm = 0$.

184: Throughout this paper it is assumed that $\delta B \lesssim B_0$ and

185: $w^\pm \lesssim v_A$.

186: 

187: In the limit of small-amplitude fluctuations ($w^\pm \ll v_A$), the

188: nonlinear term $\bm{w}^\mp \cdot \nabla \bm{w}^\pm$ in

189: equation~(\ref{eq:mhd}) can be neglected to a first approximation, and

190: the curl of equation~(\ref{eq:mhd}) becomes

191: \begin{equation}

192: \left(\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \mp v_A \frac{\partial}{\partial

193:   z}\right) \nabla \times \bm{w}^\pm = 0,

194: \end{equation} 

195: which is solved by setting $\nabla \times \bm{w}^\pm$ equal to an

196: arbitrary function of $z\pm v_A t$. Thus, $\bm{w}^\pm$ represents

197: fluctuations with $\bm{v} = \pm \bm{b}$ that propagate in $\mp z$

198: direction at speed~$v_A$ in the absence of nonlinear interactions.  In

199: the absence of an average velocity, the cross helicity defined in

200: equation~(\ref{eq:defC}) can be rewritten as

201: \begin{equation}

202: C = \frac{\sqrt{\pi\rho}}{2} \int d^3\! x \, \left[(w^+)^2 - (w^-)^2\right].

203: \label{eq:defC2} 

204: \end{equation} 

205: The cross helicity is thus proportional to the difference in energy

206: between fluctuations propagating in the $-z$ and $+z$ directions.

207: 

208: Equation~(\ref{eq:mhd}) shows that the nonlinear term is nonzero only

209: at those locations where both $w^+$ and $w^-$ are nonzero. Nonlinear

210: interactions can thus be thought of as collisions between oppositely

211: directed wave packets (Kraichnan 1965).  When both $w^+$ and $w^-$ are

212: nonzero, equation~(\ref{eq:mhd}) indicates that the $\bm{w}^\pm$

213: fluctuations are advected not at the uniform velocity $\mp v_A

214: \hat{z}$, but rather at the non-uniform velocity $\mp v_A\hat{z} +

215: \bm{w}^\mp$.  Maron \& Goldreich (2001) elaborated upon this idea by

216: showing that to lowest order in fluctuation amplitude, if one neglects

217: the pressure term, then $w^+$ wave packets are advected along the

218: hypothetical magnetic field lines corresponding to the sum of

219: $\bm{B}_0$ and the part of $\delta \bm{B}$ arising from the $w^-$

220: fluctuations.  This result can be used to construct a geometrical

221: picture for how wave-packet collisions cause energy to cascade to

222: smaller scales, as depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:f1}.  In this figure,

223: two oppositely directed wave packets of dimension $\sim \lambda_\perp$

224: in the plane perpendicular to~$\bm{B}_0$ and

225: length~$\lambda_\parallel$ along~$\bm{B}_0$ pass through one another

226: and get sheared.  Collisions between wavepackets of

227: similar~$\lambda_\perp$ are usually the dominant mechanism for

228: transferring energy from large scales to small scales.  The duration

229: of the collision illustrated in the figure is approximately~$\Delta t

230: \sim \lambda_\parallel/v_A$.  The fluctuating velocity and

231: magnetic field are taken to be in the plane perpendicular

232: to~$\bm{B}_0$, as is the case for linear

233: shear Alfv\'en waves.  The magnitude of the nonlinear term in

234: equation~(\ref{eq:mhd}) is then $\sim w^+_{\lambda_\perp}

235: w^-_{\lambda_\perp}/\lambda_\perp$, where $w^\pm_{\lambda_\perp}$ is

236: the rms amplitude of the $w^\pm$ wave packet. The fractional change in

237: the $\bm{v}$ and $\bm{b}$ fields of the $w^\mp$ wave packet induced by

238: the collision is then roughly

239: \begin{equation}

240: \left(\frac{w^+_{\lambda_\perp} w^-_{\lambda_\perp}}{\lambda_\perp}\right)\times 

241: \left(\frac{\Delta t}{

242: w^\mp_{\lambda_\perp}}\right) = \frac{w_{\lambda_\perp}^\pm \lambda_\parallel}{v_A \lambda_\perp}.

243: \label{eq:defchi1} 

244: \end{equation} 

245: 

246: \begin{figure}[h]

247: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f1.eps}

248: \caption{\footnotesize  When two wave packets collide, each wave packet

249: follows the field lines of the other wave packet and gets sheared.

250: \label{fig:f1}}

251: \end{figure}

252: 

253: If this fractional change is $\ll 1$ for both $w^+$ and $w^-$

254: fluctuations then neither wave packet is altered significantly by a

255: single collision, and the turbulence is weak. Wave packets travel a

256: distance~$\gg \lambda_\parallel$ before being significantly distorted,

257: and the fluctuations can thus be viewed as linear waves that are only

258: weakly perturbed by nonlinear interactions with other waves.  In the

259: wave-packet collision depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:f1}, the right-hand

260: side of the $ w^-$ wave packet is altered by the collision in almost

261: the same way as the left-hand side, since both sides encounter

262: essentially the same~$w^+$ wave packet, since the~$w^+$ packet is

263: changed only slightly during the collision.  Changes to the profile of

264: a wave packet along the magnetic field are thus weaker than changes in

265: the profile of a wave packet in the plane perpendicular to~$\bm{B}_0$

266: (Shebalin et al 1983, Ng \& Bhattacharjee 1997, Goldreich \& Sridhar

267: 1997, Bhattacharjee \& Ng~2001, Perez \& Boldyrev~2008). As a result,

268: in the weak-turbulence limit, the cascade of energy to

269: small~$\lambda_\parallel$ is much less efficient than the cascade of

270: energy to small~$\lambda_\perp$ (Galtier et al 2000).

271: 

272: On the other hand, if the fractional change in

273: equation~(\ref{eq:defchi1}) is of order unity then a $w^\mp$ wave

274: packet is distorted substantially during a single collision, and the

275: turbulence is said to be ``strong.'' In the case that the fractional

276: change in equation~(\ref{eq:defchi1}) is $\sim 1$ for one fluctuation

277: type, (e.g., $w^-$) but $\ll 1$ for the other ($w^+$), the turbulence

278: is still referred to as strong. It should be noted that strong

279: turbulence can arise when $w^\pm_{\lambda_\perp} \ll v_A$, provided

280: that $\lambda_\perp \ll \lambda_\parallel$.  In strong turbulence

281: energy cascades to smaller~$\lambda_\parallel$ to a greater extent

282: than in weak turbulence, but the primary direction of energy flow

283: in~$k$-space is still to larger~$k_\perp$, as discussed in the next

284: section.

285: 

286: \section{Anisotropic MHD Turbulence with Cross Helicity}

287: \label{sec:theory} 

288: 

289: In order to develop an analytical model, it is convenient to work 

290: in terms of the Fourier transforms of the fluctuating $w^\pm$ fields, given by

291: \begin{equation}

292: \tilde{\bm{w}}^\pm(\bm{k}) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3\!x \; \bm{w}(\bm{x})

293: e^{-i\bm{k}\cdot \bm{x}}.

294: \end{equation} 

295: The three-dimensional power spectrum~$A^\pm(\bm{k})$ is defined by the equation

296: \begin{equation}

297: \langle \tilde{\bm{w}}^\pm (\bm{k}) \cdot \tilde{\bm{w}}^\pm(\bm{k}_1)\rangle

298: = A^\pm(\bm{k}) \delta(\bm{k}+ \bm{k}_1),

299: \end{equation} 

300: where $\langle \dots \rangle$ denotes an ensemble average.

301: Cylindrical symmetry about~$\bm{B}_0$ is assumed, so that

302: $A^\pm(\bm{k}) = A^\pm (k_\perp,k_\parallel)$, where

303: $k_\perp$ and $k_\parallel$ are the components of $\bm{k}$

304: perpendicular and parallel to~$\bm{B}_0$.

305: The mean-square velocity associated with $w^\pm$ fluctuations

306: is then 

307: \begin{equation}

308: (\delta v^\pm)^2 = \frac{1}{4}\int d^3 \!k \; A^\pm(k_\perp,k_\parallel).

309: \label{eq:defdeltav} 

310: \end{equation} 

311: 

312: It is assumed

313: that at each value of~$k_\perp$ there is a parallel wave number

314: $\overline{k}_\parallel ^{\,\pm}(k_\perp)$ such that

315: (1) the bulk of the $w^\pm$  fluctuation energy is 

316: at $|k_\parallel| < \overline{k}_\parallel ^{\,\pm}(k_\perp)$

317: and (2) $A^\pm(k_\perp,k_\parallel)$ depends only weakly 

318: on~$k_\parallel$ for $|k_\parallel| < \overline{k}_\parallel ^{\,\pm}(k_\perp)$.

319: A $w^\pm$

320: wavepacket at perpendicular scale $k_\perp^{-1}$ then has a correlation

321: length in the direction of the mean field of $\sim

322: \left(\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,\pm} \right)^{-1}$.  The rms amplitude

323: of the fluctuating Elsasser fields at a perpendicular scale

324: $k_\perp^{-1}$, denoted $w_{k_\perp}^\pm$, is given by

325: \begin{equation}

326: (w^\pm_{k_\perp})^2 \sim A^\pm(k_\perp,0)k_\perp^2 \overline{k}_\parallel^{\,\pm}.

327: \label{eq:defdeltakpar} 

328: \end{equation} 

329: As described in the section~\ref{sec:wpc}, when a $w^\mp$ wave packet

330: at scale $k_\perp^{-1}$ collides with a $w^\pm$ wave packet at scale

331: $k_\perp^{-1}$, the fractional change in the $w^\mp$ packet resulting

332: from the collision is approximately

333: \begin{equation}

334: \chi_{k_\perp}^\pm = \frac{k_\perp w_{k_\perp}^\pm}{{\overline k}_\parallel ^{\,\pm} v_A}.

335: \label{eq:defchi2} 

336: \end{equation} 

337: The wave number $k_c^\pm$ is defined to be the value of $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,\pm}$

338: for which $\chi_{k_\perp}^\pm = 1$. Thus,

339: \begin{equation}

340: k_c^\pm = \frac{k_\perp^4 A^\pm(k_\perp, 0)}{v_A^2}.

341: \label{eq:defkc} 

342: \end{equation} 

343: 

344: \subsection{The energy cascade time}

345: 

346: When $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-} \gg k_c^-$, the value of

347: $\chi_{k_\perp} ^-$ is~$\ll 1$ and a $w^+$ is only weakly affected by

348: a single collision with a $w^-$ wave packet. Each such collision

349: requires a time $(\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-} v_A)^{-1}$.  The

350: effects of successive collisions add incoherently, and thus

351: $(\chi_{k_\perp}^-)^{-2}$ collisions are required for the $w^+$ wave

352: packet to be strongly distorted, and for its energy to pass to smaller

353: scales. The cascade time $\tau_{k_\perp}^+$ for a $w^+$ wave packet at

354: perpendicular scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$ is

355: thus roughly

356: \begin{equation}

357: \tau_{k_\perp}^+ \sim (\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-} v_A)^{-1} (\chi_{k_\perp}^-)^{-2}

358: \sim \frac{1}{k_c^- v_A} \mbox{ \hspace{0.3cm} (weak turbulence).}

359: \label{eq:tau1} 

360: \end{equation} 

361: Similarly, if $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \ll 1$, then $\tau_{k_\perp}^- \sim (k_c^+ v_A)^{-1}$.

362: 

363: When $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-} \sim k_c^-$, the value of $\chi_{k_\perp}

364: ^-$ is~$\sim 1$, a $w^+$ is strongly distorted during a single

365: wave packet collision, and the turbulence is strong. Each such

366: collision takes a time $(\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-}

367: v_A)^{-1}$. Since $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-} \sim k_c^-$, 

368: \begin{equation}

369: \tau_{k_\perp}^+ \sim (\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-}

370: v_A)^{-1} \sim \frac{1}{k_c^- v_A} \mbox{ \hspace{0.3cm} (strong turbulence).} 

371: \label{eq:tau2} 

372: \end{equation} 

373: Similarly, if $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$, then $\tau_{k_\perp}^- \sim

374: (k_c^+ v_A)^{-1}$.

375: 

376: 

377: The case $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,\pm} \ll k_c^\pm$ (i.e.,

378: $\chi_{k_\perp}^\pm \gg 1$) is explicitly excluded from the

379: discussion.  Initial conditions could in principle be set up in which

380: $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,\pm} \ll k_c^\pm$. However, the cascade

381: mechanisms described in section~\ref{sec:parcasc} will not produce the

382: condition $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,\pm} \ll k_c^\pm$ if it is not

383: initially present.  It should be emphasized that in both weak

384: turbulence and strong turbulence, the cascade time is given by the

385: same formula, $\tau_{k_\perp}^{\pm} \sim (k_c^\mp v_A)^{-1}$, which

386: involves the $A^\mp$ spectrum evaluated only at $k_\parallel=0$. 

387: 

388: \subsection{The Cascade of Energy to Larger~$k_\parallel$}

389: \label{sec:parcasc} 

390: 

391: The two basic mechanisms for transferring fluctuation energy to

392: larger~$k_\parallel$ were identified by Lithwick, Goldreich, \&

393: Sridhar~(2007).  The

394: first of these can be called ``propagation with distortion.''  Suppose

395: a $w^+$ wave packet of perpendicular scale $k_\perp^{-1}$ and

396: arbitrarily large initial parallel correlation length begins colliding

397: at $t=0$ with a stream of $w^-$ wave packets of similar perpendicular

398: scale.  At time $t=\tau_{k_\perp}^+$, the leading edge of the $w^+$

399: wave packet has been distorted substantially by the stream of $w^-$

400: wave packets, but the trailing portion of the $w^+$ wave packet at

401: distances $\ga 2 v_A \tau_{k_\perp}^+$ behind the leading edge has not

402: yet encountered the stream of $w^-$ wave packets. If the parallel

403: correlation length of the~$w^+$ wave packet is initially $ >2 v_A

404: \tau_{k_\perp}^+$, then during a time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^+$ the $w^+$

405: wave packet acquires a spatial variation in the direction of the

406: background magnetic field of length scale~$\sim 2 v_A \tau_{k}^+ \sim

407: 2 (k_c^-)^{-1}$.  This process is modeled as diffusion of $w^\pm$

408: fluctuation energy in the $k_\parallel$ direction with diffusion

409: coefficient $D_\parallel^\pm \sim (\Delta k_\parallel)^2/\Delta t$,

410: where $\Delta k_\parallel = k_c^\mp$ and $\Delta t = \tau_k^\pm$.

411: ``Propagation with distortion'' then leads to a value of

412: $D_\parallel^\pm$ of $\sim (k_c^\mp)^3 v_A$.

413: 

414: The second mechanism identified by Lithwick, Goldreich, \&

415: Sridhar~(2007) can be called ``uncorrelated cascade.'' Consider a

416: $w^+$ wave packet of perpendicular scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$ and

417: arbitrarily large parallel correlation length, and consider two points

418: within the wave packet, $P_1$ and $P_2$, that move with the wave

419: packet at velocity~$-v_A \bm{\hat{z}}$ and are separated by a distance

420: along~$\bm{B}_0$ of $ 2v_A \tau_{k_\perp}^- \sim 2(k_c^+)^{-1}$.  The

421: $w^-$ wave packets at perpendicular scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$ encountered

422: by the portions of the $w^+$ wave packet at $P_1$ and $P_2$ are then

423: uncorrelated, because $w^-$ wave packets are substantially distorted

424: while propagating between $P_1$ and $P_2$. Thus, the way in which the

425: $w^+$ wave packet cascades at location~$P_1$ is not correlated with

426: the way in which the~$w^+$ wave packet cascades at location~$P_2$. If

427: the parallel correlation length of the~$w^+$ wave packet is

428: initially~$>2v_A \tau_{k_\perp}^-$, then wave-packet collisions

429: introduce a spatial variation along~$\bm{B}_0$ into the $w^+$ wave

430: packet of length scale~$\sim 2v_A \tau_{k_\perp}^- \sim 2(k_c^+)^{-1}$

431: during a time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^+$.  Again, we model this as diffusion

432: of $w^\pm$ fluctuation energy in the $k_\parallel$ direction with

433: $D_\parallel^\pm \sim (\Delta k_\parallel)^2/\Delta t$ and $\Delta t =

434: \tau_{k_\perp}^\pm$, but now $\Delta k_\parallel = k_c^\pm$.

435: ``Uncorrelated cascade'' thus leads to a $k_\parallel$-diffusion

436: coefficient of~$\sim (k_c^\pm)^2 k_c^\mp v_A$.

437: 

438: 

439: Accounting for both mechanisms, one can write

440: \begin{equation}

441: D^\pm_\parallel \sim (k_{c,\rm max})^2 k_c^\mp v_A,

442: \label{eq:Dpar} 

443: \end{equation} 

444: where $k_{c,\rm max}(k_\perp)$ is the larger of $k_c^+(k_\perp)$ and

445: $k_c^-(k_\perp)$.  If $k_c^+ > k_c^-$, then $w^+$ energy

446: diffuses in~$k_\parallel$ primarily through the ``uncorrelated

447: cascade'' mechanism, while $w^-$ energy

448: diffuses in~$k_\parallel$ primarily through

449: the ``propagation with distortion cascade'' mechanism.

450: 

451: \subsection{Advection-Diffusion Model for the Power Spectra}

452: 

453: The phenomenology described in the preceding sections is encapsulated 

454: by the following nonlinear advection-diffusion equation, 

455: \begin{equation}

456: \frac{\partial A^\pm_k}{\partial t} = - \frac{1}{k_\perp}

457: \frac{\partial }{\partial k_\perp} \left(\frac{c_1 k_\perp^2 A^\pm_k h^\pm_k}{\tau^\pm _{{\rm eff,} k_\perp}}\right) + c_2 (k_{c,\rm max})^2 k_c^\mp v_A \frac{\partial^2 A^\pm_k}{\partial k_\parallel^2} + S^\pm_k - \gamma^\pm_k A^\pm_k,

458: \label{eq:FPpm} 

459: \end{equation} 

460: where $A^\pm_k$ is shorthand for $A^\pm(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$, $c_1$

461: and $c_2$ are dimensionless constants of order unity, and $S^\pm_k$

462: and $- \gamma^\pm_k A^\pm_k$ are forcing and damping terms,

463: respectively.  The first term on the right-hand side of

464: equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) represents advection of fluctuation energy to

465: larger~$k_\perp$, while the second term represents diffusion of

466: fluctuation energy to larger~$|k_\parallel|$.  The quantity

467: $\tau_{{\rm eff}, k_\perp}^\pm$ is an effective cascade time at

468: perpendicular scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$.  Usually, the transfer of energy

469: to small scales is dominated by local interactions in $k$-space, and

470: the cascade time for a $w^+$ wave packet is $\sim (k_c^\mp

471: v_A)^{-1}$. In some cases, however, the shearing of small-scale wave

472: packets by much larger-scale wave packets can become important. To

473: account for such cases, the effective cascade time is taken to be

474: \begin{equation}

475: (\tau_{{\rm eff}, k_\perp}^\pm)^{-1}= \max\left[

476: \frac{q_\perp^4 A^\mp (q_\perp,0)}{v_A}\right]

477: \mbox{ \hspace{0.3cm}  for $0<q_\perp< k_\perp$,}

478: \label{eq:taueff} 

479: \end{equation} 

480: i.e., $(\tau_{{\rm eff}, k_\perp}^\pm)^{-1}$ is the maximum value

481: of $k_c^\mp v_A$ for all perpendicular wave numbers between zero

482: and~$k_\perp$.

483: The flux of $w^\pm$ energy to larger~$k_\perp$ is 

484: \begin{equation}

485: \epsilon^\pm(k_\perp) = 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^\infty dk_\parallel \,

486: \frac{c_1 k_\perp^2 A^\pm_k h^\pm_k}{\tau^\pm _{{\rm eff,} k_\perp}}.

487: \label{eq:epsilon} 

488: \end{equation} 

489: The term $h^\pm _k$ is given by

490: \begin{equation}

491: h^\pm _k = - \frac{1}{A^\pm(k_\perp,0)}\frac{\partial}{\partial k_\perp}

492: \left[k_\perp A^\pm (k_\perp,0)\right],

493: \label{eq:defh} 

494: \end{equation} 

495: and is included so that $\epsilon^\pm$ increases as the $A^\pm$

496: spectrum becomes a more steeply declining function of~$k_\perp$, in

497: accordance with weak turbulence theory (Galtier et al 2000, Lithwick

498: \& Goldreich~2003).  To match the energy flux in weak turbulence

499: theory in the limit of zero cross helicity, one must set\footnote{The

500:   value of~$c_1$ in equation~(\ref{eq:valc1}) is a factor of~2 larger

501:   than the value that follows from the results of Galtier

502:   et~al~(2000). It appears that this discrepancy results from the

503:   omission of a factor of~2 in equation~(54) of Galtier

504:   et~al~(2000). This can be seen by starting from equation~(46) of

505:   Galtier et~al~(2000) and using the expression on page~1045 of Leith

506:   \& Kraichnan~(1972) to simplify polar integrals of the form $\int

507:   d^2 p\, d^2 q \,\delta (\bm{k} - \bm{p} - \bm{q})F(k,p,q)$ for

508:   two-dimensional wave vectors $\bm{k}$, $\bm{p}$, and $\bm{q}$, where

509:   $F$ is a function only of the wave-vector magnitudes and the

510:   integral is over all values of $\bm{p}$ and $\bm{q}$.}

511: \begin{equation}

512: c_1 = -\frac{\pi J}{2},

513: \label{eq:valc1} 

514: \end{equation} 

515: where

516: \begin{equation}

517: J = \int_1^\infty dx\int_{-1}^1 dy\, \frac{

518: 2 [(x^2-1)(1-y^2)]^{1/2} (1+xy)^2 [8-(x+y)^3] \,\ln[(x+y)/2]}

519: {(x^2 - y^2)^4} \simeq -1.87.

520: \label{eq:defJ}

521: \end{equation} 

522: 

523: 

524: For simplicity,

525: \begin{equation}

526: c_2 = 1.

527: \label{eq:valc2} 

528: \end{equation} 

529: 

530: 

531: \section{Steady-State Weak Turbulence}

532: \label{sec:weak} 

533: 

534: This section addresses weak turbulence in which

535: $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+} \sim \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-}$

536: at the outer scale. The weak-turbulence condition, $\chi_{k_\perp}^\pm \ll 1$,

537: is equivalent to the condition $k_c^\pm 

538: \ll \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,\pm}$. Because $k_\parallel$-diffusion involves

539: a $\Delta k_\parallel \sim k_c^\pm$ during a time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^\pm$,

540: the $k_\parallel$-increment

541: over which energy diffuses 

542: while cascading to larger~$k_\perp$ is much less than the 

543: breadth of the spectrum in the $k_\parallel$ direction ($\sim 

544: \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,\pm}$),

545: so the $k_\parallel$-diffusion terms can be ignored to a good approximation.

546: In this case, equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) possesses

547: a steady-state solution in which $\epsilon^+$ and $\epsilon^-$ are constant,

548: and in which

549: \begin{equation}

550: A^\pm_k = g^\pm(k_\parallel) k_\perp^{-n^\pm},

551: \label{eq:ssw1} 

552: \end{equation} 

553: where $g^+ $ and $g^-$ are arbitrary functions of~$k_\parallel$, and where

554: \begin{equation}

555: n^+ + n^- = 6,

556: \label{eq:npnm} 

557: \end{equation} 

558: with $2<n^\pm < 4$.  Equations~(\ref{eq:ssw1}) and (\ref{eq:npnm})

559: match the results of weak turbulence theory for incompressible MHD

560: turbulence if one allows only for three-wave interactions among shear

561: Alfv\'en waves (Galtier \& Chandran 2006), or if one considers only

562: the limit that $k_\perp \gg k_\parallel$ (Galtier et al 2002).  If one

563: writes $n^\pm = 3 \pm \alpha$ with $|\alpha|<1$ and

564: sets $g^+(k_\parallel) = g^-(k_\parallel)$,

565: then equation~(\ref{eq:epsilon}) gives

566: \begin{equation}

567: \frac{\epsilon^+}{\epsilon^-} = \frac{2 + \alpha}{2-\alpha}.

568: \label{eq:fluxratio} 

569: \end{equation} 

570: In the limit~$\alpha \ll 1$, $\epsilon^+/\epsilon^- = 1+\alpha$,

571: in agreement with the weak-turbulence-theory result

572: for $k_\perp \gg |k_\parallel|$ (Lithwick \& Goldreich~2003),

573: as in the  weak-turbulence

574: advection-diffusion model of Lithwick \& Goldreich~(2003).

575: 

576: In steady state, $A^+(k_\perp,0)$ and $A^-(k_\perp,0)$ are forced to

577: be equal at the dissipation scale so that $\tau_k^+ = \tau_k^-$.  This

578: phenomenon of ``pinning'' was discovered by Grappin et al~(1983) for

579: strong MHD turbulence, and further elaborated upon by Lithwick \&

580: Goldreich (2003) for the case of weak turbulence.  The dominant

581: fluctuation type then has the steeper spectrum.  If

582: $\epsilon^+/\epsilon^-$ is fixed, then the ratio $w_{k_f}^+/w_{k_f}^-$

583: of the rms amplitudes of the two fluctuation types at the outer

584: scale~$k_f^{-1}$ increases as $k_d/k_f$ increases, where $k_d$ is the

585: dissipation wave number.  Alternatively, if $w_{k_f}^+/w_{k_f}^-$ is

586: fixed, then $\epsilon^+/\epsilon^-$ approaches unity as~$k_d/k_f

587: \rightarrow \infty$.

588: 

589: Several of these results are illustrated by the numerical solution to

590: equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) shown in Figure~\ref{fig:f2}. This 

591: solution is obtained using a logarithmic grid for $k_\perp$, with $k_{\perp,i} =

592: k_0 2^{i/n}$ for $0<i<N$.  Similarly, $k_{\parallel,j} = k_0 2^{j/n}$

593: for $1<j<M$, but $k_{\parallel,j} = 0$ for $j=0$.  $A^\pm_k$ is

594: advanced forward in time using a semi-implicit algorithm, in which the

595: terms $h_k^\pm$, $\tau_{{\rm eff},k_\perp}^\pm$, and $k_c^\pm$ on the

596: right-hand side of equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) are evaluated at the

597: beginning of the time step, and the $A^\pm$ terms on the right-hand

598: side of equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) are evaluated at the end of the time

599: step. The algorithm employs operator splitting, treating the $k_\perp$-advection,

600: forcing, and damping in one stage, and the $k_\parallel$-diffusion is

601: a second stage. In this approach, the matrix that has to be inverted

602: to execute each semi-implicit time step is tri-diagonal. An advantage

603: of this procedure over a fully explicit method is that the time step

604: is not limited by the $k_\parallel$-diffusion time at large~$k_\perp$

605: and small~$k_\parallel$. The discretized equations are written in

606: terms of the energy fluxes between neighboring cells, so that in the

607: absence of forcing and dissipation the algorithm conserves fluctuation

608: energy to machine accuracy. For the numerical solution plotted in

609: Figure~\ref{fig:f2}, $N=80$, $M=16$, $n=4$, $S^\pm = S_0^\pm k^2

610: \exp(- k^2/k_f^2)$, $S_0^+ = 1.2 S_0^-$, $k_f = 5 k_0$, and $\gamma^\pm_k

611: = 2k^2 \nu$, where $\nu$ is an effective viscosity. The

612: initial spectra are set equal to zero, and the equations are

613: integrated forward in time until a steady state is reached. In 

614: steady state, $\delta v^+ = 2.5\times 10^{-3} v_A$ and $\delta

615: v^- = 6.4 \times 10^{-4} v_A$.

616: 

617: \begin{figure}[h]

618: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f2a.eps}

619: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f2b.eps}

620: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f2c.eps}

621: \caption{\footnotesize 

622: Numerical solution of equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm})

623: in the weak-turbulence limit.

624:  {\em Left panel:} The dimensionless 1D

625: power spectrum defined in equation~(\ref{eq:defE}).

626: {\em Middle panel:} The spectral slopes at $k_\parallel=0$.

627: {\em Right panel:}

628: The weighted value of~$k_\parallel$ defined in equation~(\ref{eq:kparw}).

629: In all panels, the solid lines refer to~$w^+$ and the dashed

630: lines refer to~$w^-$. In the right-hand panel, the two lines

631: are almost on top of each other.

632: \label{fig:f2}}

633: \end{figure}

634: 

635: 

636: The left-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig:f2} is a plot of the dimensionless

637: one-dimensional power spectrum,

638: \begin{equation}

639: E^\pm(k_\perp) = \frac{k_0 k_\perp}{v_A^2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty dk_\parallel \, A^\pm(k_\perp,k_\parallel),

640: \label{eq:defE} 

641: \end{equation} 

642: which is proportional to the energy per unit~$k_\perp$ in $w^\pm$

643: fluctuations. The middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:f2}  

644: shows that in the inertial range,

645: $d \ln A^+ (k_\perp,0)/d\ln k \simeq - 3.2$ and

646: $d \ln A^- (k_\perp,0)/d\ln k \simeq - 2.8$, as expected

647: for $S^+ /S^-  = 1.2$. The right-hand panel shows that the

648: weighted value of $k_\parallel$,

649: \begin{equation}

650: \langle k_\parallel^\pm \rangle = \frac{\displaystyle

651:   \int_{-\infty}^\infty dk_\parallel \, |k_\parallel|

652:   A^\pm(k_\perp,k_\parallel)}{\displaystyle \int_{-\infty}^\infty

653:   dk_\parallel \, A^\pm(k_\perp,k_\parallel)},

654: \label{eq:kparw} 

655: \end{equation} 

656: is roughly constant in the inertial range.

657: 

658: \section{Steady-State Strong Turbulence}

659: \label{sec:strong} 

660: 

661: This section addresses strong turbulence with $\chi_{k_f}^+ \sim 1$,

662: $\chi_{k_f}^- \la 1$, $w_{k_f}^+ \geq w_{k_f}^-$, and $\overline{

663:   k}_\parallel^{\,+} \sim \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-} $ at the outer

664: scale~$k_f^{-1}$.  The discussion allows for the possibility that

665: $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$.  As fluctuation energy cascades to

666: larger~$k_\perp$, it diffuses to larger~$|k_\parallel|$, so that

667: $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}$ and $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-}$

668: increase with increasing~$k_\perp$.  Moreover, for both $w^+$ and

669: $w^-$, the fluctuation energy diffuses over a $k_\parallel$-increment

670: of $\sim k_c^+$ during one cascade time.  For the steady-state

671: solutions of interest, $k_c^+$ is an increasing function of~$k_\perp$,

672: and thus at each $k_\perp$ we will have that $\overline{

673:   k}_\parallel^{\,+} \sim \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-} \sim

674: k_c^+$. One can thus define a single parallel-wavenumber, $\overline{

675:   k_\parallel}(k_\perp)$, to describe the spectra, with

676: \begin{equation}

677:  \overline{ k_\parallel} \sim

678: \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+} \sim \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-}

679: \sim k_c^+ 

680: \label{eq:defolkp} 

681: \end{equation} 

682: at each~$k_\perp$. Since $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}

683: \sim k_c^+$ at each scale, 

684: \begin{equation}

685: \chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1

686: \label{eq:chistrong} 

687: \end{equation} 

688: throughout the inertial range. 

689: On the other hand, since $w_{k_\perp}^-$ can be much

690: less than~$w_{k_\perp}^+$, $\chi_{k_\perp}^-$ can be~$\ll 1$.

691: 

692: The cascade time for the $w^-$ fluctuations is given by the strong-turbulence

693: phenomenology of equation~(\ref{eq:tau2}), so that the energy

694: flux in $w^-$ fluctuations is

695: \begin{equation}

696: \epsilon^- \sim 

697: \frac{(w^-_{k_\perp})^2}{\tau_{k_\perp}^-}

698: \sim k_\perp w_{k_\perp}^+  (w_{k_\perp}^-)^2.

699: \label{eq:epsms} 

700: \end{equation} 

701: Allowing for the possibility that $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$, the cascade

702: time of the $w^+$ fluctuations follows the weak-turbulence

703: phenomenology of equation~(\ref{eq:tau1}). This formula

704: is also accurate for $\chi_{k_\perp}^-$ as large as~1 (in which

705: case $w^-_{k_\perp} \sim w^+_{k_\perp}$). The energy

706: flux in $w^+$ fluctuations is then

707: \begin{equation}

708: \epsilon^+ \sim \frac{(w^+_{k_\perp})^2}{\tau_{k_\perp}^+}

709: \sim \frac{k_\perp^2 (w_{k_\perp}^-)^2 (w_{k_\perp}^+)^2 }{\overline{ k_\parallel} v_A}

710: \sim k_\perp w_{k_\perp}^+  (w_{k_\perp}^-)^2,

711: \label{eq:epsps} 

712: \end{equation} 

713: which is roughly the same as~$\epsilon^-$.  It is assumed that the

714: energy flux depends on the spectral slope as in weak turbulence, so

715: that the fluctuation type with the steeper spectrum has the larger

716: energy flux. If

717: \begin{equation}

718: w^\pm \propto k_\perp^{-a^\pm},

719: \label{eq:defapam} 

720: \end{equation} 

721: then equations~(\ref{eq:epsms}) and (\ref{eq:epsps})  imply that

722: when $\epsilon^+$ and $\epsilon^-$ are independent of~$k_\perp$,

723: \begin{equation}

724: a^+ + 2a^- = 1.

725: \label{eq:apam1} 

726: \end{equation} 

727: The condition that $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$ throughout the inertial range

728: then implies that

729: \begin{equation}

730: \overline{ k_\parallel} \propto k_\perp^{1- a^+}.

731: \label{eq:olkp1} 

732: \end{equation} 

733: As discussed in earlier studies (Grappin et~al~1983, Lithwick \&

734: Goldreich~2003), the spectra are pinned at the dissipation scale, so

735: that the dominant fluctuation type will have the steeper spectrum and

736: a somewhat larger energy flux.  For the zero-cross-helicity case,

737: equations~(\ref{eq:apam1}) and (\ref{eq:olkp1}) give $w_{k_\perp}^+ =

738: w_{k_\perp}^- \propto k_\perp^{-1/3}$ and $ \overline{ k}_\parallel

739: \propto k_\perp^{2/3}$, as in the work of Goldreich \& Sridhar (1995)

740:         [see also Higdon (1984)].

741: 

742: 

743: When $S_k^\pm = \gamma_k^\pm = 0$,

744: equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm})  possesses

745: an analytical solution that reproduces the above scalings.

746: This solution can be obtained by starting with the assumptions that

747: \begin{equation}

748: A^\pm (k_\perp,0) = c_3^\pm k_\perp^{-b^\pm},

749: \label{eq:ansatz} 

750: \end{equation} 

751: that the energy cascade is

752: dominated by local interactions, and that

753: $A^+(k_\perp,0) > A^-(k_\perp,0)$

754: for all~$k_\perp$. Equation~(\ref{eq:taueff}) then

755: becomes $(\tau_{{\rm eff},k_\perp}^\pm)^{-1} = k_\perp^4

756: A^\mp(k_\perp,0)/v_A$, and $k_{c,\rm max} = k_c^+$. Upon defining

757: \begin{equation}

758: f^\pm_k = k_\perp^{6 - b^\mp}A_{k}^\pm

759: \label{eq:deff} 

760: \end{equation} 

761: and

762: \begin{equation}

763: s = k_\perp^{8-2b^+},

764: \label{eq:defs} 

765: \end{equation} 

766: one can rewrite equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) as

767: \begin{equation}

768: \frac{\partial f^\pm_k }{\partial s} = D^\pm \frac{\partial ^2 f_k^\pm}{

769: \partial k_\parallel^2},

770: \label{eq:eqnf} 

771: \end{equation} 

772: with

773: \begin{equation}

774: D^\pm = \frac{c_2 (c_3^+)^2}{c_1 (8-2b^+)(b^\pm -1) v_A^4}.

775: \label{eq:defDpm} 

776: \end{equation} 

777: Equation~(\ref{eq:eqnf}) is solved by taking

778: \begin{equation}

779: f_k^\pm = \frac{c_4^\pm}{\sqrt{s}}\exp\left(- \frac{k_\parallel^2}{4D^\pm s}\right).

780: \label{eq:fsolve} 

781: \end{equation} 

782: Requiring that equation~(\ref{eq:ansatz}) 

783: be satisfied, one finds that $c_4^\pm = c_3^\pm$

784: and 

785: \begin{equation}

786: 2b^+ + b^- = 10.

787: \label{eq:bpbm} 

788: \end{equation} 

789: The dominance of local interactions requires that $b^+ < 4$,

790: and thus $b^- > 2$. When forcing and dissipation are taken into account,

791: the exact solution becomes an approximate solution that is valid

792: only within the inertial range. In this case, $b^+ > b^-$ 

793: because the spectra are pinned at the dissipation

794: scale whereas $A^+(k_\perp,0)$ is larger

795: than~$A^-(k_\perp,0)$ within the inertial range.  

796: Equation~(\ref{eq:fsolve}) implies that

797: \begin{equation}

798: \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+} \simeq

799: \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-} \sim \sqrt{D^\pm s} \sim \frac{c_3^+ k_\perp^{4-b^+}}{v_A^2},

800: \label{eq:kpkm0} 

801: \end{equation} 

802: where  the dimensionless constants in the

803: expression for~$D^\pm$ have been dropped, but 

804: $c_3^+$, which has dimensions, has been kept.

805: Equations~(\ref{eq:defkc}), (\ref{eq:ansatz}), and~(\ref{eq:kpkm0}) 

806: show that $k_c^+ \sim \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}$ for all $k_\perp$, so

807: that $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$ for all~$k_\perp$.

808: Equation~(\ref{eq:defE}) gives

809: \begin{equation}

810: E^\pm(k_\perp) \propto A^\pm(k_\perp,0) k_\perp \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+} \propto

811: k_\perp^{5-b^+ - b^\pm},

812: \label{eq:Eb} 

813: \end{equation} 

814: from which it follows that 

815: \begin{equation}

816: w_{k_\perp}^+ \propto k_\perp^{3-b^+},

817: \label{eq:wlps} 

818: \end{equation} 

819: and

820: \begin{equation}

821: w_{k_\perp}^- \propto k_\perp^{(6- b^+ - b^-)/2}.

822: \label{eq:wlms} 

823: \end{equation} 

824: This solution reduces to the critical-balance solution of Goldreich \&

825: Sridhar (1995) when $b^+ = b^- = 10/3$, in which case $\overline{

826:   k}_\parallel^{\, \pm} \propto k_\perp^{2/3}$, and $w_{k_\perp}^\pm \propto

827: k_\perp^{-1/3}$.  Comparing equations~(\ref{eq:wlps}) and

828: (\ref{eq:wlms}) with equation~(\ref{eq:defapam}), it can be seen that $b^+$

829: corresponds to $3+a^+$ and $b^-$ corresponds to $3 + 2a^- - a^+$.

830: Equation~(\ref{eq:kpkm0}) is thus equivalent to

831: equation~(\ref{eq:olkp1}), and equation~(\ref{eq:bpbm}) is equivalent

832: to equation~(\ref{eq:apam1}).

833: 

834: Figure~\ref{fig:f3} shows the results from a numerical solution of

835: equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}), obtained by integrating forward in time as

836: described in section~\ref{sec:weak} with the spectra initially equal

837: to zero. The numerical solution was obtained by setting $S^\pm = S_0^\pm

838: k^2 \exp(- k^2/k_f^2)$ with $S_0^+ =

839: 1.2 S_0^-$ and using the parameters

840: (defined in section~\ref{sec:weak}) $N=80$, $M=60$,

841: $n=4$, $k_f= 5 k_0$,   and $\gamma_k^\pm = 2k^2 \nu$, where the constant $\nu$ is

842: an effective viscosity. The rms velocities at steady

843: state are $\delta v^+ = 1.5 v_A$ and $\delta v^- = 0.10 v_A$.  The

844: left-hand panel shows that the one-dimensional energy

845: spectrum~$E^+_{k_\perp}$ is $\propto k_\perp^{-2.14}$ in the inertial

846: range, which corresponds to~$b^+ = 3.57$ in equation~(\ref{eq:Eb}).

847: Equation~(\ref{eq:bpbm}) then gives $b^- = 2.86$. The dotted lines in

848: the middle panel of Figure~\ref{fig:f3} correspond to the values of

849: $b^+ = 3.57$ and $b^- = 2.86$, which are reasonably close to the

850: values of $- d \ln A^\pm(k_\perp,0)/d\ln k_\perp$ in the numerical

851: solution, although these latter values vary throughout the inertial

852: range in the numerical solution.  For $b^+ = 3.57$,

853: equation~(\ref{eq:kpkm0}) gives $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}\propto

854: k_\perp^{0.43}$, which is a close match to the numerical solution, as

855: shown in the right-hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig:f3}.  The left-hand

856: panel of Figure~\ref{fig:f3} shows that the steady-state solutions for

857: $A^+$ and $A^-$ are ``pinned'' at the dissipation scale, as expected.

858: 

859: \begin{figure}[h]

860: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f3a.eps}

861: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f3b.eps}

862: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f3c.eps}

863: \caption{\footnotesize   Numerical solution of equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm})

864: for strong turbulence with~$\chi_{k_\perp}^+\sim 1$.

865: {\em Left panel:} The dimensionless 1D

866: power spectrum defined in equation~(\ref{eq:defE}).

867: {\em Middle panel:} The spectral slopes at $k_\parallel=0$.

868: {\em Right panel:}

869: The weighted value of~$k_\parallel$ defined in equation~(\ref{eq:kparw}).

870: In all panels, the solid lines refer to~$w^+$ and the dashed

871: lines refer to~$w^-$.

872: \label{fig:f3}}

873: \end{figure}

874: 

875: It should be noted that when $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$ and

876: $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$, the dominant~$w^+$ fluctuations are only

877: weakly damped by nonlinear interactions with $w^-$ waves, in the sense

878: that $\tau_{k_\perp}^+$ is much larger than the linear wave period.

879: On the other hand, for the smaller-amplitude $w^-$

880: fluctuations, the linear wave period and cascade time are comparable.

881: Thus, paradoxically, the larger-amplitude~$w^+$ fluctuations

882: can be described as waves, or, more precisely, a non-sinusoidal

883: wave train, whereas the smaller-amplitude $w^-$ fluctuations

884: can not be accurately described as waves.

885: 

886: \section{Transition Between Weak Turbulence and Strong Turbulence}

887: \label{sec:trans} 

888: 

889: This section again addresses turbulence in which

890: $\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,+} \sim\overline{k}_\parallel^{\,-} $ at

891: the outer-scale wavenumber,~$k_f$.  In the weak-turbulence limit,

892: $\chi_{k_\perp}^+$ and~$\chi_{k_\perp}^-$ increase with

893: increasing~$k_\perp$.  If the dissipation wavenumber~$k_d$ is

894: sufficiently large, then $\chi_{k_\perp}^+$ and/or $\chi_{k_\perp}^-$

895: will increase to a value of order unity at some $k_\perp$ within the

896: inertial range. This perpendicular wavenumber is denoted~$k_{\rm

897:   trans}$. The turbulence will then be described by the

898: weak-turbulence scalings of section~\ref{sec:weak} for~$k_f\ll k_\perp

899: \ll k_{\rm trans}$, and by the strong-turbulence scalings of

900: section~\ref{sec:strong} for $k_{\rm trans} \ll k_\perp \ll k_d$.

901: Figure~\ref{fig:f4} shows a numerical solution of

902: equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) that illustrates how the turbulence makes

903: this transition in a smooth manner. At small wavenumbers, this

904: solution is similar to the weak-turbulence solution plotted in

905: Figure~\ref{fig:f2}, and at large wavenumbers it is similar to the

906: strong-turbulence solution plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:f3}.  The

907: solution shown in Figure~\ref{fig:f4} was obtained by integrating

908: equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm}) forward in time to steady state using the

909: numerical method described in section~\ref{sec:weak}. The spectra were

910: initially set equal to zero. The numerical solution was obtained by

911: setting $S^\pm = S_0^\pm k^2 \exp(- k^2/k_f^2)$ with $S_0^+ = 1.2

912: S_0^-$ and using the parameters $N=100$, $M=56$, $n=4$, $k_f= 5 k_0$,

913: and $\gamma_k^\pm = 2k^2 \nu$, where the constant $\nu$ is an

914: effective viscosity.  The rms velocities at steady state are $\delta

915: v^+ = 0.32 v_A$ and $\delta v^- = 0.012 v_A$.

916: 

917: \begin{figure}[h]

918: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f4a.eps}

919: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f4b.eps}

920: \includegraphics[width=2.1in]{f4c.eps}

921: \caption{\footnotesize   Numerical solution of equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm})

922: showing a smooth transition from the

923: weak-turbulence limit at small~$k_\perp$ to the strong-turbulence

924: limit at large~$k_\perp$. 

925: {\em Left panel:} The dimensionless 1D

926: power spectrum defined in equation~(\ref{eq:defE}).

927: {\em Middle panel:} The spectral slopes at $k_\parallel=0$.

928: {\em Right panel:}

929: The weighted value of~$k_\parallel$ defined in equation~(\ref{eq:kparw}).

930: In all panels, the solid lines refer to~$w^+$ and the dashed

931: lines refer to~$w^-$. 

932: \label{fig:f4}}

933: \end{figure}

934: 

935: \section{Unequal Parallel Correlation Lengths at the Outer Scale}

936: \label{sec:unequal} 

937: 

938: In sections~\ref{sec:weak} through \ref{sec:trans}, it was assumed

939: that $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\, + } \sim \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,

940:   - }$ at the outer scale. This assumption is applicable to many

941: settings. For example, in a plasma of dimension~$L$ that is stirred by

942: a force that has a correlation length~$l \ll L$, the velocity

943: fluctuations that are excited have a correlation length~$l$, and this

944: correlation length is imprinted on both the~$w^+$ and $w^-$

945: fluctuations. On the other hand, if waves are launched along the

946: magnetic field into a bounded plasma from opposite sides of the

947: plasma, and the waves from one side have a much larger parallel

948: correlation length than the waves from the other side, it is

949: possible to set up turbulence in which the two wave types have very

950: different parallel correlation lengths at the outer scale.  This

951: situation is discussed briefly in this section.

952: 

953: For strong turbulence, if both $\chi_{k_\perp}^+$ and

954: $\chi_{k_\perp}^-$ are $\sim 1$ at some perpendicular

955: scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$, but one fluctuation type, say $w^+$, has a much

956: smaller parallel correlation length than the other (and thus a much

957: larger amplitude), then during a time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^-$ the

958: ``propagation with distortion'' mechanism discussed in

959: section~\ref{sec:parcasc} will increase $\overline{

960:   k}_\parallel^{\,-}$ until it equals $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}$,

961: which will cause $\chi_{k_\perp}^-$ to become~$\ll 1$ at

962: scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$.  At smaller scales, the solution can be

963: described by the scalings presented in section~\ref{sec:strong}, in

964: which $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}(k_\perp) \sim \overline{

965:   k}_\parallel^{\,-}(k_\perp)$. Similarly, if $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim

966: 1$ but $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$ at some scale $k_\perp^{-1}$ and if

967: $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+} \gg \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-}$ at

968: that scale, then during a time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^-$ the ``propagation

969: with distortion'' mechanism discussed in section~\ref{sec:parcasc}

970: will again increase $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-}$ until it equals

971: $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+}$, the parallel scales will remain

972: comparable at smaller perpendicular scales, and the solution can be

973: described by the scalings in section~\ref{sec:strong}.  The case in

974: which $ \chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$, $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$, and

975: $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,+} \ll \overline{ k} _\parallel^{\,-}$ is

976: not addressed in this paper.

977: 

978: 

979: \section{Implications for Turbulence in the Solar Corona and Solar Wind}

980: \label{sec:solarwind} 

981: 

982: In this section, the preceding analysis of incompressible MHD

983: turbulence is applied to the solar wind and solar corona. It should be

984: noted at the outset, however, that the solar wind and solar corona

985: (beyond roughly~$r=1.5R_{\sun}$, where $r$ is distance from the Sun's

986: center) are in the collisionless regime, and the pressure tensor is

987: not isotropic as assumed in ideal MHD. Moreover, the value of $\beta =

988: 8\pi p/B^2$ is $\ll 1$ in the corona and typically $\sim 1$ in the

989: solar wind at 1~AU, whereas incompressible MHD corresponds to the

990: limit~$\beta \rightarrow \infty$. A preliminary question that needs to

991: be addressed is thus the extent to which incompressible MHD is an

992: accurate model for these plasmas.

993: 

994: Schekochihin et~al~(2007) have recently carried out extensive

995: calculations based on kinetic theory that provide a detailed answer to

996: this question. These authors examined anisotropic turbulence in weakly

997: collisional magnetized plasmas using gyrokinetics, a low-frequency

998: expansion of the Vlasov equation that averages over the gyromotion of

999: the particles.  By applying the form of the gyrokinetic expansion

1000: derived by Howes et~al~(2006), Schekochihin et~al~(2007) showed

1001: analytically that non-compressive Alfv\'enic turbulence in the

1002: quasi-2D regime (i.e., $k_\perp \gg k_\parallel$) can be accurately

1003: described using reduced MHD in both the collisional and collisionless

1004: limits, regardless of~$\beta$, provided that the length scales of the

1005: fluctuations are much larger than the proton gyroradius and the

1006: frequencies are much less than the proton cyclotron frequency.  Since

1007: non-compressive quasi-2D fluctuations are thought to be the dominant

1008: component of the turbulence in the solar wind (see, e.g., Bieber

1009: et~al~1994) and the solar corona (Dmitruk \& Matthaeus~2003, Cranmer

1010: \& van Ballegooijen~2005), incompressible MHD is a useful

1011: approximation for modeling turbulence in these settings.

1012: 

1013: \subsection{Cross helicity in the solar wind and solar corona}

1014: \label{sec:CH} 

1015: 

1016: Cross helicity in the solar wind has been measured {\em in situ} by

1017: several different spacecraft.  In terms of the Elsasser variables

1018: $w^\pm$, there is a substantial excess of outward propagating

1019: fluctuations (taken to be $w^+$ throughout this section) over inward

1020: propagating fluctuations (taken to be $w^-$) in the inner heliosphere,

1021: although this imbalance decreases with increasing~$r$, as seen, for

1022: example, in Voyager data for low heliographic latitude (Matthaeus \&

1023: Goldstein 1982, Roberts et~al~1987) and Ulysses data at high latitude

1024: (Goldstein et~al~1995).  In a study of Ulysses and Helios data,

1025: Bavassano et~al~(2000) found that $e^+/e^- \propto r^{-1.02}$ for

1026: $r<2.6$~AU and $e^+/e^- \sim 2$ for $3\mbox{ AU}\la r \la 5 \mbox{

1027:   AU}$, where $e^\pm$ is the energy per unit mass associated with

1028: $w^\pm$ fluctuations. These numbers are intended as illustrative

1029: average values, as individual measurements of $e^+/e^-$ in the solar

1030: wind vary significantly.

1031: 

1032: Although it has not been directly measured, the ratio $e^+/e^-$ is

1033: likely very large in open-field-line regions of the solar corona.

1034: This can be seen from the work of Cranmer \& van Ballegooijen (2005),

1035: who modeled the generation of Alfv\'en waves by the observed motions

1036: of field-line footpoints in the photosphere, and the propagation and

1037: reflection of these waves as they travel along open field lines from

1038: the photosphere out into the interplanetary medium. They found that

1039: the ratio of the frequency-integrated rms Elsasser variables ($w^+$

1040: and $w^-$) is $\sim 30$ at $r= 2R_{\sun}$ (i.e., $e^+/e^- \sim 900$).

1041: Verdini \& Velli~(2007) developed a different model for the

1042: propagation, reflection, and turbulent dissipation of Alfv\'en waves

1043: in the solar atmosphere and solar wind and found that $e^+/e^-\simeq

1044: 80$ at $r=2R_{\sun}$. Based on these results, one can make the rough

1045: estimate that

1046: \begin{equation}

1047: \frac{w_{k_f}^+}{w_{k_f}^-} \sim 10 \hspace{1cm} \mbox{ (at $r=2R_{\sun}$),}

1048: \label{eq:wpwmra} 

1049: \end{equation} 

1050: where $k_f$ is the perpendicular wavenumber at the outer scale.

1051: 

1052: 

1053: \subsection{Is quasi-2D turbulence in the corona and

1054: solar wind weak or strong?}

1055: \label{sec:q2dws} 

1056: 

1057: In much of the solar wind, $\delta B$ is comparable to $B_0$, and the

1058: turbulence is in the strong-turbulence regime with~$\chi_{k_f}^+ \sim

1059: 1$.  For the corona, Cranmer \& van Ballegooijen (2005) found that the

1060: outer-scale fluctuations in open-field-line regions have periods of

1061: $T= 1-5$ minutes, $\delta v \sim 100$~km/s, and perpendicular

1062: correlation lengths of~$L_\perp \sim k_f^{-1} \sim 10^4$~km.  The

1063: Alfv\'en speed in their model corona is between 2000 and 3000~km/s at

1064: $r=2R_{\sun}$, and thus $\delta v \ll v_A$.  However, the parallel

1065: correlation length $L_\parallel$ of the outer-scale fluctuations is

1066: $\sim v_A T = 1.8 -9 \times 10^5$~km, which is $\gg L_\perp$. Because

1067: $L_\parallel/L_\perp \sim v_A/\delta v$,

1068: \begin{equation}

1069: \chi_{k_f}^+ \sim 1

1070: \label{eq:chicorona} 

1071: \end{equation} 

1072: and the low-frequency fluctuations launched into

1073: the corona by footpoint motions are in the strong-turbulence regime.

1074: There may be an additional population of higher-frequency waves in the

1075: weak-turbulence regime, but these are not discussed here. 

1076: 

1077: 

1078: \subsection{Parallel correlation lengths of inward and outward waves}

1079: \label{sec:pcl} 

1080: 

1081: In open-field-line regions of the corona, when $w^+$ waves are

1082: reflected, the resulting $w^-$ waves have the same frequencies as the

1083: $w^+$ waves. On the other hand, wave-reflection is more efficient at

1084: lower frequencies (Velli 1993), so if there is a range of wave

1085: frequencies at each~$k_\perp$, the energy-weighted average frequency

1086: of inward waves would tend to be somewhat lower than that of the

1087: outward waves. This suggests that at the outer scale the parallel

1088: correlation length~$L_\parallel$ of the $w^-$ fluctuations is somewhat

1089: larger than the value of~$L_\parallel$ for the $w^+$ fluctuations.

1090: However, given equation~(\ref{eq:chicorona}), the $w^+$ fluctuations

1091: imprint their parallel correlation length on the $w^-$ fluctuations

1092: during a single turnover time $\tau_{k_\perp}^-$, as argued in

1093: section~\ref{sec:unequal}. The parallel correlation lengths of the

1094: $w^+$ and $w^-$ fluctuations in the corona can thus be taken to be

1095: approximately equal at the outer scale, and hence also at smaller

1096: scales. The same approximation is reasonable for turbulence in the

1097: solar wind.

1098: 

1099: \subsection{Energy Dissipation Rate}

1100: \label{sec:epsilon} 

1101: 

1102: If we take $k_f$ to be the perpendicular wave number at the outer

1103: scale, $w_{k_f}^+$ to be the rms amplitude of the outward-propagating

1104: fluctuations at the outer scale, and $w_{k_f}^-$ to be the rms

1105: amplitude of the Sunward-propagating fluctuations at the outer scale,

1106: then equations~(\ref{eq:epsms}), (\ref{eq:epsps}),

1107: and~(\ref{eq:chicorona}) imply that

1108: \begin{equation}

1109: \epsilon^+ \sim \epsilon^- \sim  k_f w^+_{k_f} (w^-_{k_f})^2.

1110: \label{eq:epsSW} 

1111: \end{equation} 

1112: This estimate is a factor of $\sim w_{k_f}^-/w_{k_f}^+$ smaller than

1113: the standard strong-turbulence estimate of $\epsilon^+ \sim k_f

1114: (w_{k_f}^+)^2 w_{k_f}^-$ that appears in many studies (e.g., Zhou \&

1115: Matthaeus 1990, Cranmer \& Van Ballegooijen~2005, Lithwick, Goldreich,

1116: \& Sridhar~2007, Verdini \& Velli~2007). This difference has important

1117: implications for turbulent heating of the solar corona and solar wind.

1118: 

1119: \subsection{Cascade Time}

1120: \label{sec:cascadetime} 

1121: 

1122: 

1123: For the energetically dominant $w^+$ fluctuations, the cascade

1124: time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^+$ is much longer than the linear wave period, at

1125: least at scales much larger than the dissipation scale.  This result

1126: is important for determining the conditions under which turbulence can

1127: be a viable mechanism to explain the heating of the solar

1128: corona. Observations taken with the {\em Ultraviolet Coronagraph

1129:   Spectrometer} (UVCS) indicate that there is strong heating of

1130: coronal plasma at $r\lesssim 2 R_{\sun}$ (Kohl et al 1998, Antonucci

1131: et al 2000). An appealing model to explain this heating is that

1132: low-frequency Alfv\'en waves are launched by turbulent motions of

1133: field-line footpoints in the photosphere, that some of these waves are

1134: reflected, and that interactions between oppositely directed Alfv\'en

1135: wave packets in the corona causes the wave energy to cascade to small

1136: scales and dissipate (Matthaeus et~al~1999, 2002; Dmitruk et~al~2001,

1137: 2002; Cranmer \& van Ballegooijen 2005, 2007; Verdini \& Velli 2007).

1138: In one version of this model, the waves that cross the transition

1139: region and enter the corona have not yet undergone a turbulent

1140: cascade, and their energy is concentrated at the fairly long periods

1141: ($>1$~minute) characteristic of the observed footpoint motions

1142: that are believed to make the dominant contribution to the outward

1143: directed wave flux.  In order for this scenario to explain the UVCS

1144: measurements, there needs to be time for the outer-scale waves to

1145: cascade within the corona before they travel beyond~$r\simeq 2

1146: R_{\sun}$.  If, as above, we take $k_f$ to be the value of~$k_\perp$

1147: at the outer scale, $w_{k_f}^+$ to be the rms amplitude of the outward

1148: waves at the outer scale, and $L_\parallel$ to be the parallel

1149: correlation length of the fluctuations at the outer scale, then

1150: equation~(\ref{eq:tau1}) can be used to express the cascade time for

1151: the outward waves at the outer scale as

1152: \begin{equation}

1153: \tau^+_{k_f} \sim \frac{L_\parallel}{v_A} \left(\frac{w_{k_f}^+}{w_{k_f}^-}\right)^2

1154: (\chi_{k_f}^+)^{-2},

1155: \label{eq:taucorona} 

1156: \end{equation} 

1157: where $\chi_{k_f}^+ \sim k_f w_{k_f}^+ L_\parallel/v_A$.  Thus, for

1158: waves with a period $L_\parallel/v_A \sim 1$~minute,

1159: equations~(\ref{eq:wpwmra}), (\ref{eq:chicorona}),

1160: and~(\ref{eq:taucorona}) give $\tau^+_{k_f} \sim 100$~minutes. On the

1161: other hand, the Alfv\'en speed in a coronal hole at~$r< 2R_{\sun}$

1162: is~$\sim 2000-3000$~km/s (Cranmer \& van Ballegooijen 2005), and the

1163: time for an Alfv\'en wave to travel from the coronal base out to

1164: $r=2R_{\sun}$ is 4-6 minutes.  There is thus not enough time for the

1165: energy of waves with periods $> 1$~minute to cascade and dissipate

1166: within a few solar radii of the Sun.

1167: 

1168: Dmitruk \& Matthaeus~(2003) and Verdini \& Velli (2007) avoid this

1169: difficulty by postulating that a broad frequency spectrum of waves is

1170: launched upwards from the photosphere. Another possible way around

1171: this difficulty is the development of a broad frequency spectrum of

1172: fluctuations from wave-packet collisions in the chromosphere, in which

1173: the energies of inward and outward propagating waves are

1174: comparable due to strong wave reflection at the transition region.

1175: 

1176: 

1177: 

1178: \subsection{Spectral Index}

1179: \label{sec:slope} 

1180: 

1181: Much of the discussion of the inertial-range power spectrum of

1182: solar-wind turbulence has focused on the question of whether the

1183: spectral index is closer to the Kolmogorov (1941) value of~$-5/3$ or

1184: the Iroshnikov-Kraichnan value of~$-3/2$ (Iroshnikov~1963,

1185: Kraichnan~1965).  A value of $-5/3$ is supported by a number of

1186: theoretical studies (e.g., Montgomery \& Turner 1981, Higdon 1984,

1187: Goldreich \& Sridhar 1995) and numerical simulations (Cho \& Vishniac

1188: 2000, M\"uller \& Biskamp 2000, Cho et~al~ 2002, Haugen et~al~2004). A

1189: value value of~$-3/2$ is supported by a second group of theoretical

1190: studies (Boldyrev 2005, 2006; Mason et~al~2006; see also Beresnyak \&

1191: Lazarian 2006) and numerical simulations (Maron \& Goldreich 2001,

1192: M\"uller et~al~2003, M\"uller \& Grappin 2005, Mininni \&

1193: Pouquet~2007).  It should be noted that all of the above-mentioned

1194: studies address MHD turbulence with negligible cross helicity.

1195: 

1196: Spacecraft measurements yield frequency spectra for the magnetic field

1197: and velocity fluctuations, where the frequency $f$ is approximately

1198: $k_r U/2\pi$, where $k_r$ is the radial component of the wave-vector

1199: and $U$ is the solar-wind speed [Taylor's (1938) ``frozen-in flow

1200:   hypothesis'']. Below a spectral-break frequency~$f_b$, the spectra

1201: are typically fairly flat, being approximately proportional

1202: to~$f^{-1}$ (Matthaeus \& Goldstein 1986). At $f>f_b$, the spectra

1203: steepen. The time scale corresponding to the spectral break,

1204: $f_b^{-1}$, increases with increasing~$r$.  For example, Bruno \&

1205: Carbone (2005) found that $f_b^{-1}$ was $0.06$~hours at 0.3~AU,

1206: 0.16~hours at 0.7~AU, and 0.4~hours at 0.9~AU in a sample of Helios~2

1207: data. In two other studies based on data from several spacecraft,

1208: Matthaeus \& Goldstein (1986) found that $f_b^{-1}\sim 3.5$~hours at

1209: 1~AU, while Klein et~al~(1992) found $f_b^{-1} \sim 12$~hours at

1210: 4~AU. The inertial range roughly corresponds to frequencies in the

1211: interval $f_b < f < f_d$, where~$f_d$ is the frequency corresponding

1212: to the dissipation scale.  At 1~AU, $f_d \sim 0.3 \mbox{ s}^{-1}$

1213: (Smith et~al~2006).  A large number of inertial-range spectral indices

1214: have been reported in the literature.  For example, Matthaeus \&

1215: Goldstein (1982) found a spectral index of $-1.73 \pm 0.08$ for the

1216: magnetic field in Voyager data at $r=1$~AU, and a spectral index of

1217: $-1.69 \pm 0.08$ for the total energy.  Goldstein et~al~(1995, Fig. 1)

1218: found that the spectral index for the $w^+$ fluctuations was slightly

1219: steeper than $-5/3$ in Ulysses data at 2~AU and 4~AU. Their results

1220: also suggest a shallower $w^-$ spectrum, consistent with the idea that

1221: the spectra are pinned at the dissipation wavenumber~$k_d$.  In a

1222: study of Helios~2 magnetic-field data, Bruno \& Carbone (2005, Figure

1223: 23) found spectral indices of $-1.72$ at 0.3~AU, $-1.67$ at 0.7~AU,

1224: and $-1.70$ at 0.9~AU.  Using data from the WIND spacecraft at 1~AU,

1225: Podesta et~al~(2007) found a total-energy spectral index of $-1.63$,

1226: with the velocity spectrum flatter than the magnetic spectrum.  Marsch

1227: \& Tu (1996) found a spectral index of $-1.65\pm 0.01$ for the

1228: magnetic field at 1~AU in Helios~2 data.  Horbury \& Balogh (1995)

1229: found a spectral index close to~$-5/3$ for the magnetic field in

1230: Ulysses data at 2.5~AU.  Using magnetic-field data from the ACE

1231: spacecraft at 1~AU, Smith et~al~(2006) found a spectral index of

1232: $-1.63\pm 0.14$ in open-field-line regions and $-1.56\pm 0.16$ in

1233: magnetic clouds.  Smith (2003) found spectral indices between $-1.7$

1234: and $-1.8$ in a study of Ulysses magnetic-field data covering a range

1235: of heliographic latitudes and radii.

1236: 

1237: Overall, the spectra are more consistent with a Kolmogorov scaling

1238: than an Iroshnikov-Kraichnan scaling. It should be emphasized,

1239: however, that the observations in several cases are consistent with

1240: inertial range spectra that are steeper than a Kolmogorov spectrum.

1241: Spectral indices~$> 5/3$ have been found in previous theoretical

1242: studies of weak incompressible MHD turbulence (Bhattacharjee \& Ng

1243: 1997, Goldreich \& Sridhar~1997, Galtier et~al~2000, Bhattacharjee \&

1244: Ng~2001, Perez \& Boldyrev~2008), as well as strong isotropic MHD

1245: turbulence with cross helicity (Grappin et~al~1983). In this paper, it

1246: is argued that spectral indices~$> 5/3$ are a consequence of cross

1247: helicity in strong anisotropic MHD turbulence.

1248: 

1249: The simplest way to apply this paper to solar wind turbulence is to

1250: model the solar wind fluctuations at some location as steady-state,

1251: forced, homogeneous turbulence with the same average value of

1252: $w_{k_f}^+/w_{k_f}^-$, where $w_{k_f}^+$ and $w_{k_f}^-$ are the rms

1253: amplitudes of the $w^\pm$ fluctuations at the outer scale~$k_f^{-1}$.

1254: Upon setting $w_{k_\perp}^\pm \propto k_\perp ^{-a^\pm}$, one can

1255: write $(w^+_{k_\perp}/w^-_{k_\perp})^2 \propto (k_\perp/k_d)^{-2a^+ +

1256:   2a^-}$, where it is assumed that the spectra are equal at the

1257: dissipation wave number~$k_d$.  Equation (\ref{eq:apam1}) then gives

1258: $(w^+_{k_\perp}/w^-_{k_\perp})^2 \simeq (k_\perp/k_d)^{1-3a^+}$, and

1259: the value of $a^+$ can be obtained from the equation

1260: $(w^+_{k_f}/w^-_{k_f})^2 \simeq (k_f/k_d)^{1-3a^+}$. The total-energy

1261: spectrum, $E(k_\perp) = E^+(k_\perp) + E^-(k_\perp)$, is

1262: approximately~$k_\perp^{-1} (w_{k_\perp}^+)^2$, although it is flatter

1263: than $k_\perp^{-1} (w_{k_\perp}^+)^2$ near the dissipation scale where

1264: the flatter spectrum of the~$w^-$ fluctuations is important. Thus, at

1265: scales much larger than the dissipation scale,

1266: \begin{equation}

1267: E(k_\perp) \propto k_\perp^{-q},

1268: \end{equation} 

1269: where

1270: \begin{equation}

1271: q = \frac{5}{3} +  \frac{2 \log_{10}[(w_{k_f}^+)^2/ (w_{k_f}^-)^2]}{3\log_{10}(k_d/k_f)}.

1272: \label{eq:defc3} 

1273: \end{equation} 

1274:   Upon defining

1275: the outer-scale fractional cross helicity as

1276: \begin{equation}

1277: \sigma_c = \frac{(w_{k_f}^+)^2 - (w_{k_f}^-)^2}{(w_{k_f}^+)^2 + (w_{k_f}^-)^2}

1278: \label{eq:defsigmac} 

1279: \end{equation} 

1280: one can rewrite equation~(\ref{eq:defc3}) as

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: q =  \frac{5}{3} + \frac{2 \log_{10}[(1+ \sigma_c)/ (1- \sigma_c)]}{3\log_{10}(k_d/k_f)}.

1283: \label{eq:defc32} 

1284: \end{equation} 

1285: The spectral index from equation~(\ref{eq:defc32}) is plotted in

1286: Figure~\ref{fig:f5}, assuming that $k_d/k_f = f_d/f_b = 3780$, where

1287: $f_b = (3.5 \mbox{ hours})^{-1}$ is the break frequency at 1~AU

1288: discussed above (Matthaeus \& Goldstein 1986) and $f_d = 0.3 \mbox{

1289:   s}^{-1}$ is the frequency at the dissipation scale. (Smith

1290: et~al~2006) With this choice, $q=1.78$ for $(w_{k_f}^+)^2/ (w_{k_f}^-)^2

1291: = 4$ and $q=1.74$ for $(w_{k_f}^+)^2/ (w_{k_f}^-)^2 = 2$.  When

1292: equation~(\ref{eq:defc32}) is applied to the solar wind, $\sigma_c$

1293: should be interpreted as the cross helicity at the outer

1294: scale~$k_f^{-1}$ averaged over at least a few outer-scale

1295: fluctuations.

1296: 

1297: 

1298: \begin{figure}[h]

1299: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5.eps}

1300: \caption{\footnotesize Dependence of spectral index of the total

1301:   energy spectrum,~$q$, on the outer-scale fractional cross

1302:   helicity~$\sigma_c$. The ratio of the dissipation wavenumber~$k_d$

1303:   to the perpendicular wavenumber at the outer-scale~$k_f$ in

1304:   equation~(\ref{eq:defc32}) is taken to be~$3780$.

1305: \label{fig:f5}}

1306: \end{figure}

1307: 

1308: Some caution, however, is warranted when applying

1309: equation~(\ref{eq:defc32}) to the solar wind because solar wind

1310: conditions vary with~$r$, while equation~(\ref{eq:defc32}) is based on

1311: results for homogeneous turbulence. The condition under which it is

1312: valid to treat the solar-wind fluctuations at a some~$r$ with an

1313: observed~$\sigma_c$ as homogeneous turbulence with the same $\sigma_c$

1314: is that the cascade time at the outer scale $\tau_{k_f}^\pm$ be much

1315: smaller than the time $t_{\rm adv} = r/U$ for turbulent structures to

1316: be advected a distance~$r$, where $U$ is the solar wind speed.

1317: However, this condition is often either violated or only marginally

1318: satisfied.  This is illustrated by the results of Matthaeus \&

1319: Goldstein (1982) based on four days of Voyager data (in their

1320: Table~1).  For the fluctuations at 1~AU, these authors found an rms

1321: velocity fluctuation of~$\delta v = 25.5$~km/s [which is comparable

1322:   to~$v_A$ at 1~AU], a velocity correlation length (outer scale) of

1323: $L_\perp \sim 2.83\times 10^{11}$~cm, and an average solar-wind speed

1324: of $352$~km/s.  In this particular data set, $\sigma_c = 0.06$, so

1325: that $w_{k_f}^+ \sim w_{k_f}^-$, with $\tau_{k_f}^+ \sim \tau_{k_f}^-

1326: \sim L_\perp /\delta v = 1.11 \times 10^5$~s. On the other hand,

1327: $t_{\rm adv} = \mbox{ (1 AU)}/U = 4.26 \times 10^5$~s, which

1328: marginally satisfies the condition $t_{\rm adv} \gg \tau_{k_f}^+$.

1329: However, if $w_{k_f}^+ /w_{k_f}^-$ were instead~$\sim 3$ at 1~AU, as

1330: in the results of Bavassano et~al~(2000), then $\tau_{k_f}^+$ would

1331: be somewhat larger than~$t_{\rm adv}$. Thus, the inhomogeneity of

1332: the solar wind may influence the effects of cross helicity on the

1333: spectral indices. However, more detailed modeling of inhomogeneous

1334: solar-wind turbulence is beyond the scope of this paper.

1335: 

1336: \section{Comparison to Other Studies}

1337: \label{sec:comp} 

1338: 

1339: In this section, the results of this paper are compared to 

1340: two recent studies of strong anisotropic incompressible MHD turbulence

1341: with cross helicity.

1342: 

1343: \subsection{Lithwick, Goldreich, \& Sridhar (2007) }

1344: 

1345: The model for the cascade of energy to larger~$k_\parallel$ used in

1346: this paper is based on the results of Lithwick, Goldreich, \&

1347: Sridhar~(2007) (hereafter LGS07). As a result, in both studies, if

1348: $w^+$ and $w^-$ have comparable correlation lengths in the direction

1349: of~$\bm{B}_0$ at the outer scale, then $\overline{

1350:   k}_\parallel^{\,+}\simeq \overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-}$ at all

1351: smaller scales. The principal difference between this paper and~LGS07

1352: lies in our treatment of the cascade time for the dominant fluctuation

1353: type,~$w^+$. LGS07 argue that if $w_{k_\perp}^+ \gg w_{k_\perp}^-$,

1354: $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$, and $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$, then the

1355: shearing applied by $w^-$ wave packets on a $w^+$ wave packet at

1356: perpendicular scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$ is coherent over a time~$(k_\perp

1357: w_{k_\perp}^-)^{-1}$, which greatly exceeds the time $ (\overline{

1358:   k}_\parallel^{\,-} v_A)^{-1}$ required for a $w^+$ and $w^-$ wave

1359: packet at perpendicular scale $k_\perp^{-1}$ to pass through each

1360: other.  In contrast, in this paper, it is argued that the coherence

1361: time for the straining of the $w^+$ wave packet is of order the

1362: ``crossing time'' $ (\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\,-} v_A)^{-1}$. As a

1363: result, the results obtained in this paper for the inertial-range

1364: power spectra, degree of anisotropy, cascade time, and energy fluxes

1365: are different from those of~LGS07.

1366: 

1367: The approach taken in this paper is motivated by the following

1368: argument.  As argued by LGS07 and Maron \& Goldreich~(2001), the $w^-$

1369: fluctuations propagate approximately along the hypothetical magnetic

1370: field lines obtained from the sum of~$\bm{B}_0$ and the magnetic field

1371: of the~$w^+$ fluctuations.  Let us call these hypothetical magnetic

1372: field lines the ``$w^+$ field lines,'' and let us consider a $w^+$

1373: wave packet of perpendicular scale~$k_\perp^{-1}$ and parallel scale

1374: $(\overline{ k}_\parallel)^{-1}$, where $\overline{ k}_\parallel =

1375: \overline{ k}_\parallel^+ \simeq \overline{ k}_\parallel^-$.  Let us

1376: work in a frame of reference that moves at speed~$v_A$ in the~$-z$

1377: direction along with the~$w^+$ fluctuations. Let us also take an

1378: initial snapshot of the turbulence at $t=0$ and trace out all of the

1379: ``$w^+$ field lines'' that pass through our wave packet. The volume

1380: filled by these $w^+$~field lines is the ``source region'' from which

1381: the $w^-$ wavepackets encountered by our $w^+$ wave packet

1382: originate. If we wait one crossing time $(\overline{ k}_\parallel

1383: v_A)^{-1}$ and take a new snapshot of the turbulence, then at any

1384: given location the $w^+$ fluctuations will not have changed very much,

1385: since $w_{k_\perp}^- \ll w_{k_\perp}^+$. However, if we trace out the

1386: new $w^+$ field lines passing through our wave packet, the volume that

1387: is filled by these new $w^+$ field lines will differ substantially

1388: from the initial source region at distances~$\ga (\overline{

1389:   k}_\parallel)^{-1} $ from our wave packet due to the rapid

1390: divergence of neighboring field lines in MHD turbulence.  In other

1391: words, small local changes in $w^+$ lead to large changes in the

1392: connectivity of the $w^+$ field lines.

1393: 

1394: To see this, let the $w^+$ field line that passes through some

1395: point~$P$ in our wave packet at~$t=0$ be called ``field line~$A$.''

1396: Let the $w^+$ field line that passes through point~$P$ at $t=

1397: (\overline{ k}_\parallel v_A)^{-1}$ be called ``field line~$B$.''  As

1398: before, let us work in a frame of reference that moves at speed~$v_A$

1399: in the~$-z$ direction. Field lines~$A$ and~$B$ are fixed curves, since

1400: they are traced out within two snapshots of the turbulence.  If we

1401: follow field line~$B$ for a distance~$\ll (\overline{

1402:   k}_\parallel)^{-1}$, it will separate from field line~$A$ by some

1403: small distance~$x$ that is~$\ll k_\perp^{-1}$.  If we continue to

1404: follow field line~$B$, its separation from field line~$A$ is analogous

1405: to the separation of two neighboring field lines within a single

1406: snapshot of the turbulence. As shown by Narayan \& Medvedev~(2001),

1407: Chandran \& Maron~(2004), and Maron, Chandran, \& Blackman~(2004), if

1408: a pair of field lines is separated by a distance~$x \ll k_\perp^{-1}$

1409: at one location, then the distance the field-line pair must be

1410: followed before it separates by a distance~$k_\perp^{-1}$ is a few

1411: times the parallel size of an eddy of perpendicular

1412: size~$k_\perp^{-1}$ - i.e., a few times~$(\overline{

1413:   k}_\parallel)^{-1}$. It turns out that the particular value of $x$

1414: has little effect unless one considers the (irrelevant) case in which

1415: $x/d \sim e^{-N},$ where $N$ is large and $d$ is the perpendicular

1416: dissipation scale. (Chandran \& Maron 2004) This is because within the

1417: inertial range the amount of magnetic shear increases towards small

1418: scales; therefore, if $x$ is made very small, then the distance one

1419: has to follow the field-line pair in order for~$x$ to double becomes

1420: very small. Thus, as a result of the rapid divergence of neighboring

1421: field lines in MHD turbulence, the ``source region'' of our $w^+$ wave

1422: packet at $t=(\overline{ k}_\parallel v_A)^{-1}$ differs substantially

1423: from the source region at $t=0$ at distances $\ga (\overline{

1424:   k}_\parallel)^{-1}$ from our wave packet. Because the $w^-$

1425: fluctuations vary rapidly in the direction perpendicular to the

1426: magnetic field, the $w^-$ wave packets encountered by our $w^+$ wave

1427: packet will decorrelate on a time scale of order the crossing time

1428: $(\overline{ k}_\parallel v_A)^{-1}$ due to the time evolution of the

1429: source region.

1430: 

1431: It should noted that there are two unexplained aspects of LGS07's

1432: model, as pointed out by Beresnyak \& Lazarian~(2007).  The first

1433: concerns the nature of the transition from the weak-turbulence

1434: regime~($\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \ll 1$ and $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$) to the

1435: strong-turbulence regime~($\chi_{k_\perp}^+\sim 1$ and

1436: $\chi_{k_\perp}^- \ll 1$).  In LGS07's analysis, as one passes from

1437: the weak regime to the strong regime, the coherence time for the

1438: straining of the $w^+$ wave packets by~$w^-$ wave packets increases by

1439: a factor of $(\chi_{k_\perp}^-)^{-1}$ and the energy cascade

1440: time~$\tau_{k_\perp}^+$ decreases by a factor of~$\chi_{k_\perp}^-$.

1441: It is not clear why these large changes should occur across the

1442: transition scale.  The second issue is that LGS07 find that

1443: $E^+(k_\perp) \propto k_\perp^{-5/3}$ and $E^-(k_\perp) \propto

1444: k_\perp^{-5/3}$ regardless of the fractional cross helicity.  Since

1445: the ratio $E^+(k_\perp)/E^-(k_\perp)$ is independent of wavenumber, it

1446: is not clear how pinning could occur in their model, or how the

1447: spectra would behave near the dissipation scale.

1448: 

1449: 

1450: \subsection{Beresnyak \& Lazarian (2007)}

1451: 

1452: Beresnyak \& Lazarian (2007) (hereafter BL07) have published an online

1453: article on strong MHD turbulence with cross helicity. The following

1454: discussion refers to the version of their article that is available

1455: electronically as of the writing of this paper. The work of BL07 is

1456: similar to this paper in that both studies take the dominant

1457: fluctuation type, $w^+$, to undergo a weak cascade. Also,

1458: equations~(\ref{eq:defapam}) through (\ref{eq:olkp1}) of this paper

1459: are equivalent to their equation~(5), except for the fact that they

1460: take the parallel correlation lengths of $w^+$ and $w^-$ to differ by

1461: a constant multiplicative factor when a power-law solution for the

1462: spectra is assumed. (The possibility of more general solutions is

1463: claimed by BL07.) On the other hand, there are a number of significant

1464: differences between this paper and Beresnyak \& Lazarian's (2007)

1465: work. They argue that for the $w^+$ fluctuations, the dominant

1466: nonlinear interactions are between fluctuations with comparable

1467: parallel correlation lengths and different perpendicular correlation

1468: lengths, whereas for the $w^-$ fluctuations the dominant interactions

1469: are between fluctuations with comparable perpendicular scales.

1470: Here, it is argued that for both $w^+$ and $w^-$ the

1471: dominant interactions are between fluctuations with similar

1472: perpendicular scales.  When $w^+_{k_\perp} \gg w^-

1473: _{k_\perp}$ and $\chi_{k_\perp}^+ \sim 1$, their Figure~1 suggests

1474: that the parallel correlation length of~$w^+$ fluctuations can be less

1475: than the parallel correlation length of~$w^-$ fluctuations.  It is

1476: argued in section~\ref{sec:unequal} of this paper that this can not be

1477: the case, because the $w^+$ fluctuations will imprint their parallel

1478: correlation length onto the~$w^-$ fluctuations.  They argue that the

1479: scalings given by equations~(\ref{eq:defapam}) and (\ref{eq:olkp1})

1480: [equivalently, their equation~(5)] can not apply if the parallel

1481: correlation lengths of the $w^+$ and $w^-$ fluctuations are equal,

1482: arguing that this would require $\epsilon^+ = \epsilon^-$, whereas in

1483: this paper the ratio~$\epsilon^+/\epsilon^-$ depends upon the slopes

1484: of the power spectra, as in weak turbulence.  They argue that if the

1485: $w^+$ and $w^-$ fluctuations are driven with the same parallel

1486: correlation length at the outer scale, there will be a non-power law

1487: part of the solution at large scales that will transition at smaller

1488: scales to a power law solution with $w_{k_\perp}^+$ and

1489: $w^-_{k_\perp}$ both $\propto k_\perp^{-1/3}$ and $\overline{

1490:   k}_\parallel ^{\,\pm}\propto k_\perp^{2/3}$. In contrast, in this

1491: paper a power-law solution starting at the outer scale is obtained

1492: with different scalings for $w^+_{k_\perp}$ and $w^-_{k_\perp}$, and

1493: with $\overline{ k}_\parallel^{\pm}$ growing more slowly

1494: than~$k_\perp^{2/3}$.

1495: 

1496: \section{Conclusion}

1497: 

1498: This paper proposes a new phenomenology for strong, anisotropic,

1499: incompressible MHD turbulence with cross helicity and introduces a

1500: nonlinear advection-diffusion equation [equation~(\ref{eq:FPpm})] to

1501: describe the time evolution of the anisotropic power spectra of the

1502: $w^+$ and $w^-$ fluctuations.  It is found that in steady state the

1503: one-dimensional power spectra of the energetically dominant $w^+$

1504: fluctuations, $E^+(k_\perp)$, is steeper than $k_\perp^{-5/3}$, and

1505: that $E^+(k_\perp)$ becomes increasingly steep as the fractional cross

1506: helicity~$\sigma_c$ increases.  Increasing $\sigma_c$ also increases

1507: the energy cascade time of the $w^+$ fluctuations, reduces the

1508: turbulent heating power for a fixed fluctuation energy, and increases

1509: the anisotropy of the fluctuations at small scales.

1510: 

1511: Although most of the discussion has focused on forced, steady-state

1512: turbulence, the results of this paper can also be applied to decaying

1513: turbulence.  For example, equations~(\ref{eq:tau1}) and

1514: (\ref{eq:tau2}) can be used to estimate the time scale for turbulence

1515: to decay.  The resulting prediction is that if the fluctuations are

1516: initially excited with $w_{k_f}^+ \gg w_{k_f}^-$ and with comparable

1517: parallel correlation lengths at the outer scale, then the turbulence

1518: will decay into a state in which~$w^-$ fluctuations are absent, as in

1519: the earlier work of Dobrowolny, Mangeney, \& Veltri (1980), Grappin

1520: et~al~(1983), and Lithwick \& Goldreich (2003).  This ``maximally

1521: aligned'' state will then be free from nonlinear interactions, and

1522: will persist for long times until it damps via linear dissipation.

1523: 

1524: 

1525: \acknowledgements I thank Chuck Smith, Sebastien Galtier, Bernie

1526: Vasquez, Yoram Lithwick, Alex Lazarian, and Andrey Beresnyak for

1527: helpful comments and suggestions.  This work was supported in part by

1528: the NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering under

1529: grant number AST-0613622, by NASA under grant numbers NNX07AP65G and

1530: NNH06ZDA001N-SHP06-0071, and by DOE under grant number

1531: DE-FG02-07-ER46372.

1532: 

1533: 

1534: 

1535: 

1536: \references

1537: 

1538: 

1539: Antonucci, E., Dodero, M. A., \& Giordano, S. 2000, Sol. Phys.,

1540: 197, 115 

1541:                      

1542: Barnes, A. 1966, Phys. Fluids, 9, 1483

1543: 

1544: Bavassano, B., Pietropaolo, E., \& Bruno, R. 2000, J. Geophys. Res.,

1545: 105, 15959

1546: 

1547: Beresnyak, A., \& Lazarian, A. 2006, ApJ, 640, L175

1548: 

1549: Beresnyak, A., \& Lazarian, A. 2007, arXiv:0709.0554v1

1550: 

1551: Bhattacharjee, A. \& Ng, C. S. 2001, ApJ 548, 318 

1552: 

1553: Bieber, J., Matthaeus, W., Smith, C., Wanner, W., Kallenrode, M., \&

1554: Wibberenz, G. 1994, ApJ, 420, 294

1555: 

1556: Biskamp, D., Schwarz, E., \& Drake, J. F. 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 1264

1557: 

1558: Biskamp, D., Schwarz, E., Zeiler, A., Celani, A., \& Drake, J. F. 1999, Phys. Plasmas, 6, 751

1559: 

1560: Boldyrev, S., Nordlund, A., \& Padoan, P. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89,

1561: 031102

1562: 

1563: Boldyrev, S. 2005, ApJ, 626, L37

1564: 

1565: Boldyrev, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96 115002

1566: 

1567: Brodin, G., Stenflo, L., \& Shukla, P. K. 2006, Solar Phys., 236,

1568: 285

1569: 

1570: Bruno, R., \& Carbone, V. 2005, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 2, 4

1571: [Online article: cited Nov. 14, 2007, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2005-4]

1572: 

1573: Chandran, B. 2004, Sp. Sci. Rev., 292, 17

1574: 

1575: Chandran, B. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 265004

1576: 

1577: Cho, J., \& Vishniac, E. 2000, ApJ, 539, 273

1578: 

1579: Cho, J., Lazarian, A., \& Vishniac, E. 2002, ApJ, 564, 291

1580: 

1581: Cho, J., \& Lazarian, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 245001

1582: 

1583: Cho, J., \& Lazarian, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 325

1584: 

1585: Cho, J., \& Lazarian, A. 2004, ApJL, 615, L41

1586: 

1587: Cranmer, S. R. \& van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2005, ApJS, 156, 265

1588: 

1589: Cranmer, S. R. \& van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2007, ApJS, 171, 520

1590: 

1591: Dmitruk, P., Milano, L. J., \&

1592: Matthaeus, W. H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 482

1593: 

1594: Dmitruk, P., Matthaeus, W. H., Milano, L. J., Oughton, S., Zank, G. P.,

1595: \& Mullan, D. J. 2002, ApJ, 575, 571

1596: 

1597: Dobrowolny, M., Mangeney, A., Veltri, P. L. 1980, Phys. Rev. Lett., 35, 144

1598: 

1599: Elmegreen, B. G.,  \& Scalo, J., ARAA, 42, 211

1600: 

1601: Galtier, S., Nazarenko, S. V., Newell, A. C., \& Pouquet,

1602: A. 2000, J. Plasma Phys., 63, 447

1603: 

1604: Galtier, S., \& Chandran, B. 2006, Phys. Plasmas, 3, 114505

1605: 

1606: Galtier, S., \& Buchlin, E. 2007, ApJ, 656, 560

1607: 

1608: Goldreich, P., \& Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763

1609: 

1610: Goldreich, P., \& Sridhar, S. 1997, ApJ, 485, 680

1611: 

1612: Goldstein, B. E., Smith, E. J., Balogh, A., Horbury, T. S., Goldstein, M. L.,

1613: \& Roberts, D. A. 1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 3393

1614: 

1615: Grappin, R., Pouquet, A., \& L\'eorat, J. 1983, A\&A, 126, 51

1616: 

1617: Haugen, N. E. L., Brandenburg, A., \& Dobler, W., Phys. Rev. E. 2004,

1618: 70, 016308

1619: 

1620: Higdon, J. 1984, ApJ, 285, 109

1621: 

1622: Howes, G. G., Cowley, S. C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G. W., Quataert, E.,

1623: \& Schekochihin, A. A. 2006, ApJ,  651  590-614

1624: 

1625: Howes, G. G., Cowley, S. C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G. W., Quataert, E.,

1626: \& Schekochihin, A. A. 2007a, arXiv:0707.3147

1627: 

1628: Howes, G. G., Dorland, W., Cowley, S. C.,  Hammett, G. W., Quataert, E.,

1629: Schekochihin, A. A., \& Tatsuno, T. 2007b, arXiv:0711.4355

1630: 

1631: Iroshnikov, P. 1963, Astron. Zh. 40, 742

1632: 

1633: Klein, L. W., Matthaeus, W. H., Roberts, D. A., \& Goldstein, M. L. 1992,

1634: {\em Solar Wind Seven; Proceedings of the 3rd COSPAR Colloquium, Goslar, Germany,} pp. 197-200.

1635: 

1636: Kohl, J. L. et al 1998, ApJL, 501, 127

1637: 

1638: Kolmogorov, A. N. 1941, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 30, 299

1639: 

1640: Kraichnan, R.  H. 1965, Phys. Fluids 8, 1385

1641: 

1642: Kuznetsov, E. A. 2001, J. Exp. Theor. Phys., 93, 1052

1643: 

1644: Leith, C. E., \& Kraichnan, R. H. 1972, J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 1041

1645: 

1646: Lithwick, Y., \& Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 562, 279

1647: 

1648: Lithwick, Y., \& Goldreich, P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 1220

1649: 

1650: Lithwick, Y., Goldreich, P., \& Sridhar, S. 2007, ApJ, 655, 269 (LGS07)

1651: 

1652: Luo, Q., \& Melrose, D. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1151

1653: 

1654: Maron, J., Chandran, B., \& Blackman, E. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92,

1655: 045001

1656: 

1657: Maron, J., \& Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1175

1658: 

1659: Marsch, E., \& Tu C.-Y. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 11149

1660: 

1661: Mason, J., Cattaneo, F., \& Boldyrev, S. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 255002

1662: 

1663: Matthaeus, W. H., \& Goldstein, M. L. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 6011

1664: 

1665: Matthaeus, W. H., \& Goldstein, M. L. 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 495

1666: 

1667: Matthaeus, W. H., \& Montgomery, D. 1980,  New York Acad. Sci., 357, 203

1668: 

1669: Matthaeus, W. H., Zank, G. P., Leamon, R. J.,

1670: Smith, C. W., Mullan D. J.,  \& Oughton, S. 1999, Sp. Sci. Rev., 87, 269

1671: 

1672: Matthaeus, W. H., Mullan D. J., Dmitruk, P., Milano, L., \& Oughton, S. 2002,

1673: Non. Proc. Geophys., 9, 1

1674: 

1675: Matthaeus, W. H., Dmitruk, P., Smith, D., Ghosh, S., \& Oughton, S. 2003,

1676: Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 4-1

1677: 

1678: Matthaeus, W. H., Pouquet, A., Mininni, P. D., Dmitruk, P.,

1679: \& Breech, B. 2007, arXiv:0708.0801

1680: 

1681: Mininni, P., \& Pouquet, A. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 254502 

1682: 

1683: Moffatt, H. K. 1978, {\em Magnetic field generation in electrically conducting fluids}  (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978)

1684: 

1685: Montgomery, D., \& Matthaeus, W. 1995, ApJ, 447, 706

1686: 

1687: Montgomery, D., \& Turner, L. 1981, Phys. Fluids, 24, 825

1688: 

1689: M\"uller, W. C., \& Biskamp, D. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 475

1690: 

1691: M\"uller, W. C., Biskamp, D., \& Grappin, R. 2003, Phys. Rev. E, 67, 066302

1692: 

1693: M\"uller, W. C., \& Grappin, R. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 114502

1694: 

1695: Ng, C. S., \& Bhattacharjee, A. 1996, ApJ, 465, 845

1696: 

1697: Ng, C. S., \& Bhattacharjee, A. 1997, Phys. Plasmas, 4, 605

1698: 

1699: Oughton, S., Matthaeus, W. H., \& Ghosh, S. 1995, LNP, Vol.~462: {\em

1700:   Small-Scale Structures in Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and

1701:   Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence}, p. 273

1702: 

1703: Oughton, S., Dmitruk, P., \& Matthaeus, W. H. 2006, Phys. Plasmas,

1704: 13, 2306

1705: 

1706: Padoan, P., Jimenez, R., Nordlund, A., \& Boldyrev, S. 2004, Phys.

1707: Rev. Lett., 92, 191102

1708: 

1709: Perez, J. C., \& Boldyrev, S. 2008, ApJL, 672, L61

1710: 

1711: Podesta, J. J., Roberts, D. A., \& Goldstein, M. L. 2007, ApJ, 664, 543

1712: 

1713: Pouquet, A., Sulem, P. L., \& Meneguzzi, M. 1988, Phys. Fluids, 31, 2635

1714: 

1715: Roberts, D. A., Goldstein, M. L., Klein, L. W., \& Matthaeus, W. H. 1987,

1716: J. Geophys. Res., 92, 12023

1717: 

1718: Schekochihin, A. A., Cowley, S. C., Dorland, W., Hammett, G. W., Howes, G. G., Quataert, E., \&  Tatsuno, T 2007b, arXiv:0704.0044

1719: 

1720: Shebalin, J. , Matthaeus, W., \& Montgomery, D. 1983, J. Plasma Phys., 

1721: 29, 525

1722: 

1723: Shukla, P. K., Brodin, G., \& Stenflo, L. 2006, Phys. Lett. A,

1724: 353, 73

1725: 

1726: Skilling, J., McIvor, I., \& Holmes, J. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 87P

1727: 

1728: Smith, C. W. 2003, {\em Solar Wind Ten: Proceedings of the Tenth

1729:   International Solar Wind Conference}, AIP Conference Proceedings,

1730: 679, 413

1731: 

1732: Smith, C. W., Hamilton, K., Vasquez, B., \& Leamon, R. 2006, ApJL, 645, 85

1733: 

1734: Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., \&  Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJL, 508, 99

1735: 

1736: Taylor, G. I. 1938, Proc. R. Soc. London A, 164, 476

1737: 

1738: Velli, M. 1993, A\&A, 270, 304

1739: 

1740: Verdini, A., \& Velli, M. 2007, ApJ, 662, 669

1741: 

1742: Zhou, Y., \& Matthaeus, W. H. 1990, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 10291

1743: 

1744: \end{document}

1745: 

1746: 

1747: 

1748: