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

2:  

3: \begin{document}

4:  

5: 

6: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

7: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]

8: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[section]

9: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

10: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

11: 

12: 

13: \title{Magnetoelliptic Instabilities} 

14: \author{Norman R. Lebovitz}

15: \affil{Mathematics Department, University of Chicago}

16: \affil{Chicago, IL 60637, USA}

17: \email{norman@math.uchicago.edu}

18: \and

19: \author{Ellen Zweibel}

20: \affil{Astronomy Department and Center for Magnetic Self-Organization}

21: \affil{University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA} 

22: \email{zweibel@astro.wisc.edu}

23: 

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: We consider the stability of a configuration consisting of a vertical

27: magnetic field in a planar flow on elliptical streamlines in ideal

28: hydromagnetics. In the absence of a magnetic field the elliptical flow

29: is universally unstable (the ``elliptical instability''). We find this

30: universal instability persists in the presence of magnetic fields of

31: arbitrary strength, although the growthrate decreases somewhat. We

32: also find further instabilities due to the presence of the magnetic

33: field. One of these, a destabilization of Alfven waves, requires the

34: magnetic parameter to exceed a certain critical value. A second,

35: involving a mixing of hydrodynamic and magnetic modes, occurs for all

36: magnetic-field strengths. These instabilities may be important in tidally

37: distorted or otherwise elliptical disks. A disk of finite thickness is stable

38: if the magnetic fieldstrength exceeds a critical value, similar to

39: the fieldstrength which suppresses the magnetorotational instability.

40: 

41: \end{abstract}

42: 

43: \keywords{accretion discs -- instabilities: elliptical, hydromagnetic}

44: 

45: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}

46: The problem of momentum transport in accretion disks is widely

47: believed to require hydrodynamic or hydromagnetic turbulence for its

48: resolution. The origin of this turbulence may be sought in the

49: instability of laminar solutions of the equations of hydromagnetics,

50: solutions that are compatible with the geometry of accretion

51: disks. The recent history of these efforts has taken the form of first

52: recognizing such an instability mechanism, and then trying to

53: incorporate that mechanicsm into realistic disk models.

54: 

55: The magnetorotational instability (MRI) mechanism, originally discovered by

56: \citet{vel} and \citet{cha} and first applied to accretion disks in

57: \citet{bah}, is of this kind (see

58: \citet{mri} for a review). It appears in rotating, magnetized systems in

59: which the specific angular momentum increases outward and in which the

60: magnetic field is weak enough that rotational effects are not overwhelmed

61: by magnetic tension. 

62: 

63: A second mechanism, that of the elliptical instability considered by

64: \citet{jg} and others \citep{lpk,ryug, ryugv}, is also consistent with the

65: accretion-disk setting. This instability mechanism has been reviewed by \citet{rk02}. In the setting considered by Goodman et. al., it

66: appears to require a secondary in order to enforce departure from

67: rotational symmetry of the streamlines via a tidal potential. This is

68: certainly appropriate for binary systems but it is likely that, even

69: in the absence of a secondary, the laminar motion in the plane of the

70: disk would not be accurately circular, so the elliptical-instability

71: mechanism would appear to be a candidate of considerable

72: generality. It does not require a magnetic field. One of the

73: conclusions of the present paper is that it further persists in the

74: presence of a magnetic field. In the idealized setting of the present

75: problem, the latter may be of arbitrarily large strength. However, we

76: also argue that in the setting of a disk geometry, there may indeed be

77: a limit on the field strength.

78: 

79: In this paper we therefore investigate the interaction of a vertical

80: magnetic field with flow on elliptical streamlines, on the ground that

81: both magnetic fields and noncircular streamlines are likely

82: ingredients in accretion-disk settings. There are similarities with

83: and differences from previous work on effect of magnetic fields on the

84: elliptical instability \citep{rk94}, which are

85: discussed in \S \ref{discussion}.

86: 

87: 

88: \section{Formulation}\label{form}

89: We consider flow on elliptical streamlines together with a magnetic

90: field and investigate linear stability theory. The underlying

91: equations are the Euler equations of fluid dynamics

92: \begin{equation}\label{euler}

93: {\mathbf u}_t + {\mathbf u} \cdot \nabla {\mathbf u} = - \nabla p +

94: \left(\mbox{curl}\,{\mathbf B} \right) \times {\mathbf B}

95: \end{equation} 

96: and the induction equation

97: \begin{equation}\label{induc}

98: {\mathbf B}_t + {\mathbf u} \cdot \nabla {\mathbf B} = {\mathbf B}

99: \cdot \nabla {\mathbf u}. 

100: \end{equation} 

101: We shall assume that

102: div$\,{\mathbf u} =0$ and div$\,{\mathbf B} =0$ and that the fluid is

103: unbounded. 

104: 

105: It is easy to check that the following steady fields represent a

106: solution of the preceding system:

107: \begin{equation}\label{unpert.sol}

108: {\mathbf U} = \Omega \left(- \frac{a_1}{a_2}x_2,

109: \frac{a_2}{a_1}x_1,0\right),\;{\mathbf B} = \left(0,0,B\right), \; P =

110: \frac{\Omega ^2}{2}\left(x_1^2 + x_2^2 \right).\end{equation} Here

111: $\Omega$ and $B$ are constants, and a constant may also be added to

112: the pressure term. More general exact solutions of the combined

113: fluid/magnetic equations exist in an unbounded domain \citep{addc88};

114: the case in hand is probably the simplest of these.

115: 

116: \subsection{The perturbed system}\label{pert.sys}

117: Let ${\mathbf u}, {\mathbf B}, p$ be replaced by ${\mathbf U}+{\mathbf

118: u}, {\mathbf B}+{\mathbf b}, P + p$ in equations (\ref{euler},

119: \ref{induc}) above, and linearize. The resulting perturbation

120: equations are

121: \begin{equation}\label{pert.euler}

122: {\mathbf u}_t + {\mathbf U} \cdot \nabla {\mathbf u} + {\mathbf u} \cdot

123: \nabla {\mathbf U} = - \nabla p + \left(\mbox{curl} {\mathbf b} \right)

124: \times {\mathbf B}\end{equation} and

125: \begin{equation}\label{pert.induc}

126: {\mathbf b}_t + {\mathbf U} \cdot \nabla {\mathbf b} = {\mathbf B}

127: \cdot \nabla {\mathbf u} + {\mathbf b} \cdot \nabla {\mathbf U}, \end{equation}

128: together with the conditions that ${\mathbf u}$ and ${\mathbf b}$ be

129: solenoidal. These equations allow {\em rotating-wave} solutions of the

130: form

131: \begin{equation}\label{r-w.ansatz}

132: {\mathbf u}={\mathbf v}\left(t\right) \exp i \left({\mathbf

133: k}\left(t\right),{\mathbf x}\right),\;{\mathbf b}={\mathbf

134: w}\left(t\right) \exp i \left({\mathbf k}\left(t\right),{\mathbf

135: x}\right),\; p = \phi \left(t\right) \exp i \left({\mathbf

136: k}\left(t\right),x\right)\end{equation} where the expression $\left({\mathbf

137: k},{\mathbf x}\right)$ denotes the inner product.

138: Because ${\mathbf u}$ and ${\mathbf b}$ are solenoidal, the conditions

139: \begin{equation}\label{solenoidal}

140: \left({\mathbf k}\left(t\right),{\mathbf v}\left(t\right)\right) =0,\;\left({\mathbf k}\left(t\right),{\mathbf w}\left(t\right)\right) =0\end{equation}

141: must be satisfied.

142: 

143: Write

144: \begin{equation}\label{U.matrix}

145: {\mathbf U} = A{\mathbf x}\;\mbox{where}\;A=\Omega

146: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&-E&0\\E^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&0

147: \end{array}, \;\right), E = a_1/a_2.\end{equation} Then on substituting the

148: rotating-wave expressions from equation (\ref{r-w.ansatz}) into the

149: perturbation equations one finds

150: \begin{eqnarray}

151: \dot{\mathbf k}&=& -A^t{\mathbf k},\label{keq}\\

152: \dot{\mathbf v}&=& -A{\mathbf v} -i{\mathbf k}\phi + iB\left({\mathbf k}\times {\mathbf w}\right)\times {\mathbf e}_3 \label{veq}\\

153: \dot{\mathbf w}&=&i\left(k_3 B\right){\mathbf v} + A{\mathbf w}.\label{weq}\end{eqnarray}

154: Equation (\ref{keq}) can be solved to give

155: \begin{equation}\label{ksol}

156: {\mathbf k} = \left(\kappa \cos \left(\Omega t - \chi\right),

157: E\kappa \sin \left(\Omega t - \chi\right), k_3\right),\end{equation}

158: where $\kappa, k_3 $ and $\chi$ are constants.

159: The pressure coefficient $\phi$ can be eliminated with the aid of the

160: solenoidal condition (\ref{solenoidal}). One finds

161: \begin{equation}\label{phieq}

162: -i\left(\phi + Bw_3\right) = 2k^{-2}\left(A^t{\mathbf k},{\mathbf

163: v}\right).\end{equation} The equation for ${\mathbf v}$ now takes the

164: form

165: \begin{equation}\label{new.veq}

166: \dot{\mathbf v}= C\left(t\right){\mathbf v} +i\left(k_3 B\right){\mathbf w},\end{equation}

167: where

168: \begin{equation}

169: C\left(t\right) =-2\left(\Omega /k^2\right)

170: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}-E^{-1}k_1k_2&Ek_1^2&0\\-E^{-1}k_2^2&Ek_1k_2&0\\-E^{-1}k_3k_2&Ek_1k_3&0\end{array}\right)

171: + \Omega \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&E&0\\-E^{-1}&0&0\\0&0&0\end{array}\right).\end{equation}

172: It's convenient to break the six-dimensional system consisting of

173: equations (\ref{new.veq}) and (\ref{weq}) into two, one of size four and the other of size two:

174: \begin{eqnarray*}

175: \dot{v_1} &=&- \left(2\Omega /k^2\right)k_1\left(E k_1v_2 -

176: E^{-1}k_2v_1\right) + \Omega E v_2 +im w_1,\\ 

177: \dot{v_2} &=&

178: -\left(2\Omega /k^2\right)k_2 \left(E k_1v_2 - E^{-1}k_2 v_1\right) 

179: -\Omega E^{-1}v_1 + im w_2,\\ 

180: \dot{w_1} &=& im v_1  -\Omega

181: Ew_2,\\ \dot{w_2} &=& im v_2 + \Omega E^{-1}w_1,\end{eqnarray*}

182: where $m = k_3 B.$ These four equations are self-contained and the remaining equations,

183: \begin{eqnarray}\label{v3w3}

184: \dot{v_3}&=&-\left(2\Omega /k^2\right)k_3\left(Ek_1v_2-E^{-1}k_2v_1\right) +im w_3,\\

185: \dot{w_3}&=&im v_3 

186: \end{eqnarray}

187: may be integrated once the expression

188: \begin{equation}\label{c1}

189: c_1 \equiv Ek_1v_2 - E^{-1}k_2v_1

190: \end{equation}

191: is found by solving the four-dimensional system above. Equations

192: (\ref{keq}), (\ref{veq}),(\ref{weq}) and (\ref{phieq}) imply that 

193: \[ \frac{d}{dt} \left({\mathbf k}, {\mathbf v}\right)= im

194: \left({\mathbf k}, {\mathbf w}\right) \;\mbox{and}\;\frac{d}{dt} \left({\mathbf k}, {\mathbf w}\right)= im

195: \left({\mathbf k}, {\mathbf v}\right).\]

196: Thus in solving this system we need to impose the conditions

197: that these inner products are zero initially; this will thereafter

198: maintain the incompressibility conditions (\ref{solenoidal}).

199: 

200: The incompressibility condition provides an alternative way of finding $v_3$ and $w_3$ once the

201: equations for $v_1,v_2,w_1,w_2$ have been solved, provided that 

202: $k_3 \ne 0.$ The only cases for which $k_3$ can vanish are those for which the combinations

203: $k_1 v_1 + k_2 v_2$ and $k_1 w_1 + k_2 w_2$ are also found to vanish on

204: solving the four-dimensional system above. It is not difficult to show

205: that there can be no instability associated with such a solution (see

206: in particular the equivalent system (\ref{c_eq}) below). Accordingly,

207: we henceforth consider only perturbations with vertical wave number

208: $k_3 \ne 0.$  

209: 

210: \subsection{Change of variables}\label{new-variables}

211: We change to new variables to facilitate subsequent

212: calculations\footnote{The origin of this change of variables is

213: related to the existence of the rotating-wave solutions.}.

214: \begin{eqnarray}\label{new_vars}

215: c_1&=&Ek_1v_2 - E^{-1}k_2v_1, \nonumber \\ c_2&=&k_1v_1 + k_2v_2

216: \left(=-k_3v_3\right), \nonumber \\ c_3&=&Ek_1w_2 -E^{-1}k_2w_1,

217: \nonumber \\ c_4&=&k_1w_1 +k_2w_2 \left(=-k_3w_3\right).

218: \end{eqnarray}

219: This is a time-dependent (periodic) change of variables since

220: ${\mathbf k}$ is periodic in $t$.

221: \noindent The equations to be solved take the form 

222: \begin{equation}\label{c_eq}\dot{c}=D\left(t\right)c\end{equation} in these variables, with (we have put $\Omega = 1$ here to agree with earlier conventions)

223: \begin{equation}\label{D_matrix}

224: D\left(t\right) =

225: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}-2\left(E-E^{-1}\right)k^{-2}k_1k_2&-2&im&0\\2k^{-2}k_3^2&0&0&im\\im&0&0&0\\0&im&0&0\end{array}\right).

226: \end{equation}

227: 

228: 

229: \subsection{General Considerations}\label{general}

230: 

231: The coefficients of the matrix $D$ depend on the phase angle $\chi$

232: appearing in the expressions (\ref{ksol}) above for the wave vector

233: $k$. For purposes of studying stability, we may set $\chi =0$\footnote{On the

234: other hand, for purposes of solving the initial-value problem, which

235: involves integrating over initial wave vectors, we would need to retain

236: it.}. This is easily seen by making the substitution $t^\prime =

237: t-\chi$, which eliminates $\chi$ from the equation. For the

238: remainder of this work we take $\chi =0.$

239: 

240: \medskip

241: 

242: The system (\ref{c_eq}) presents a Floquet problem (cf. \citet{ys}): the stability of

243: the chosen steady solution ${\mathbf U}, {\mathbf B}$ depends on

244: whether there are solutions of this system that grow exponentially

245: with time. This is settled by finding the Floquet multiplier matrix

246: $M$. The latter is defined as follows. Let $\Phi \left(t\right)$ be

247: the fundamental matrix solution of equation (\ref{c_eq}) that reduces

248: to the identity at $t=0$. Then, since the periodicity of $D$ is

249: $2\pi$, $M= \Phi \left(2\pi \right).$ If any eigenvalue $\lambda$

250: of $M$ has modulus exceeding one, this implies that there is indeed an

251: exponentially growing solution.

252: 

253: It is familiar in conservative problems that 

254: 

255: \begin{proposition}\label{quartet}

256: Whenever $\lambda$ is an

257: eigenvalue of the Floquet matrix, so also are its inverse $\lambda

258: ^{-1}$ and its complex conjugate $\overline{\lambda}$. 

259: \end{proposition}

260: The first statement of this proposition is a typically a consequence of

261: canonical Hamiltonian structure, the second a consequence of the

262: reality of the underlying problem. However, the system (\ref{c_eq}) is

263: not canonical, and the matrix appearing in it is not real. We can

264: nevertheless establish these familiar properties of the eigenvalues

265: directly from the system (\ref{c_eq}), as follows.  The time-reversal

266: invariance of the physical problem is reflected in the existence

267: of a reversing symmetry $R = \mbox{diag}\,\left(1,-1,-1,1\right)$ of

268: the matrix $D$ above: $RD\left(-t\right) =- D\left(t\right)R$,

269: implying that whenever $c\left(t\right)$ is a solution so also is

270: $Rc\left(-t\right)$. Since the solutions of the Floquet problem have

271: the structure $c(t)=p(t) \exp \left(\sigma t\right)$, there must also

272: be a solution $p(-t) \exp \left(-\sigma t\right).$ But the eigenvalues

273: of the Floquet multiplier matrix $M$ are the values $\lambda = \exp

274: \left(2\pi \sigma \right)$. This shows that if $\lambda$ is an

275: eigenvalue of $M$, so also is $\exp \left(-2 \pi \sigma \right) =

276: \lambda ^{-1}$.

277: 

278: Similarly, under matrix transformation $S = \mbox{diag}\,

279: \left(1,1,-1,-1\right)$, $D$ goes to its complex conjugate. This shows

280: that $M = S \overline{M} S^{-1}$, i.e., that $M$ and its conjugate

281: have the same eigenvalues.

282: 

283: Immediate consequences of Proposition \ref{quartet} are the following:

284: first, in the stable case, eigenvalues of $M$ lie on the unit circle; second,

285: if, as parameters change, an eigenvalue is at the onset of

286: instability, it must have multiplicity two (or higher). The latter

287: conclusion is because, in the complex $\lambda$-plane, the dangerous

288: eigenvalue $\lambda$ must leave the unit circle simultaneously with

289: $\overline{\lambda}^{-1}$, which lies along the same ray as $\lambda

290: $ and therefore coincides with it when they both lie on the unit

291: circle. Thus a necessary condition for the onset of linear instability is a

292: resonance where two Floquet multipliers coincide.

293: 

294: \subsection{Parameters}\label{parameters}

295: There are three dimensionless parameters that figure in this

296: problem. We call them $\epsilon, \mu,$ and $\eta$:

297: \begin{equation}\label{equ:definitions}

298: \epsilon = \frac{1}{2}\left(E - E^{-1}\right), \; \mu = k_3/k_0, \;

299: \mbox{and} \; \eta = k_0B.\end{equation} 

300: Thus $\epsilon$ represents

301: the departure of the streamlines of the unperturbed flow from axial

302: symmetry. In these equations $k_0 = \sqrt{\kappa ^2 + k_3^2}$ and

303: represents the length of the wave vector if $\epsilon = 0$. The

304: magnetic parameter $\eta$ depends not only on the strength of the

305: unperturbed magnetic field but also on the wavelength of the

306: perturbation. 

307: 

308: In the matrix $D$ above, the magnetic field enters through the

309: parameter $m=k_3 B$ (which is a

310: measure of the magnetic tension

311: force), and we shall continue to use this notation for

312: the present, on the understanding that $m=\mu \eta$.  It is also clear

313: that we can use $E$ rather than $\epsilon$ to measure the departure

314: from rotational symmetry, and we shall do this in some cases.

315: 

316: 

317: \section{Analysis}

318: 

319: The Floquet matrix is $$

320: M\left(\epsilon , \mu, \eta \right) = \Phi \left(2\pi,\epsilon , \mu

321: , \eta \right).$$

322: One could map out the stability and instability

323: regions in the $\epsilon \mu \eta$ parameter space numerically by

324: integrating the system (\ref{c_eq}) systematically for many values of

325: these parameters. We in fact do this for a selection of parameter

326: values in \S \ref{numerical} below.  However, in this and the

327: following section we present the outlines and results of an asymptotic

328: analysis based on regarding $\epsilon$ as a small parameter (details

329: are presented in the Appendices). This is more revealing than the

330: numerical reults on their own. It is also of considerable importance

331: in interpreting the numerical results, and is quite accurate even

332: for values of $\epsilon$ that are not very small (cf. Figure \ref{hydromode} below).

333: The calculation proceeds in two steps; finding $M$, and calculating its eigenvalues.

334: 

335: \subsection{The Floquet Matrix}\label{floquet}

336: 

337:  The asymptotic

338: analysis is facilitated by the circumstance that, if we put $\epsilon

339: =0$, the coefficient matrix $D_0$ (say) of equation (\ref{D_matrix})

340: becomes constant. We find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $D_0$ in Appendix

341: \ref{subsec:zop}. There are two complex conjugate pairs of modes. One pair

342: reduces to the ordinary hydrodynamic modes in the limit $\eta\rightarrow 0$. The

343: second pair are magnetic modes with zero frequency at $\eta = 0$. In the weak

344: field limit, the ratio of magnetic to kinetic energy is ${\mathcal{O}}(\eta^2/4)$ for the modified hydrodynamic modes and ${\mathcal{O}}(4/\eta^2)$ for the

345: magnetic modes. If $\eta\gg 1$, the kinetic and magnetic energies are near

346: equipartition for both types of mode.

347:  

348: We now turn to a brief description of the asymptotic (or

349: perturbation) procedure.  In what follows the parameter $\eta$ will

350: be held fixed so, to simplify the notation, we suppress the dependence

351: of the Floquet matrix on this parameter: $M = M\left(\epsilon ,\mu

352: \right) = \Phi \left(2 \pi , \epsilon, \mu \right)$. We shall need the

353: Taylor expansion

354: \begin{equation}\label{M_exp}

355: M\left(\epsilon , \mu \right) = M\left(0,\mu _0 \right) + M_\epsilon

356: \left(0,\mu _0 \right) \epsilon + M_\mu \left(0, \mu _0 \right) \left(\mu -

357: \mu _0 \right) + \cdots ,

358: \end{equation}

359: where the dots indicate higher-order terms in $\epsilon$ and $\mu -

360: \mu _0$.  The reason for allowing variations with $\mu$ as well as

361: variations with $\epsilon$ is that the region in the $\epsilon \mu $

362: plane where instability occurs is typically a wedge with apex at a

363: point $\left(\epsilon, \mu \right) = (0, \mu _0)$ and boundaries $\mu

364: = \mu_0 + \nu _{\pm}\epsilon$, where the slopes $\nu _+$ and $\nu _-$

365: are to be found. (cf. Figure \ref{hydromode} below). We will therefore

366: consider $\mu$ of the form

367: \begin{equation}\label{mu_expansion}

368: \mu = \mu _0 + \nu \epsilon + \cdots

369: \end{equation}

370: where $\nu$ may be regarded as a fixed parameter to be chosen

371: later. This will lead us to the widest of wedges in the $\epsilon \mu$

372: plane, of width $O\left(\epsilon\right)$, excluding other wedges of

373: width $O\left(\epsilon ^m\right)$ with $m \ge 2$. These higher-order

374: wedges typically occupy a tiny fraction of the parameter space

375: (see Figure \ref{ho} below). As a result of the representation

376: (\ref{mu_expansion}) we may write

377: \begin{equation}\label{M_exp_2}

378: M = M_0 + M_1 \epsilon + \cdots

379: \end{equation}

380: where

381: \begin{equation}\label{M0andM1}

382: M_0 = M\left(0, \mu _0 \right) \; \mbox{and}\; M_1 = M_\epsilon

383: \left(0,\mu _0\right) + \nu M_\mu \left(0 , \mu _0 \right).

384: \end{equation}

385: 

386: 

387: The matrix $M_0$ is given in Appendix \ref{subsec:zop}, together with an

388: expression for $M_{\epsilon}$. We effect a change of basis, which diagonalizes $M_0$

389: and simplifies the calculation of $M_{\epsilon}$, in Appendix \ref{distinct}. The elements

390: of $M_1$ are calculated in Appendix \ref{subsec:elements}.

391: 

392: \subsection{The characteristic polynomial}\label{char_poly}

393: Denote by 

394: \begin{equation}\label{charpol}

395: p\left(\lambda, \epsilon \right) = \left|M\left(\epsilon

396: \right) - \lambda I \right|\end{equation} 

397: the characteristic polynomial of the

398: Floquet multiplier matrix $M\left(\epsilon \right)$ and its roots by

399: $\Lambda _1, \Lambda _2, \cdots$. A necessary

400: condition for stability is that each root lie on the unit circle. To

401: explore the onset of instability for various parameter values, we

402: shall obtain the characteristic polynomial $p$ in the form

403: \begin{equation}\label{p_expansion}

404: p\left(\lambda , \epsilon \right) = p_0\left(\lambda \right) +

405: p_1\left(\lambda \right) \epsilon + p_2\left( \lambda \right) \epsilon

406: ^2 + \cdots \end{equation} and exploit our knowledge of the roots of

407: $p_0$ to obtain the roots of $p\left(\lambda , \epsilon \right)$ in

408: the form of a Puiseux expansion in $\epsilon$ \citep{hil}).

409: 

410: The nature of this expansion depends on the

411: multiplicities of the roots $\left\{\lambda _k \right\}$ of $p_0$, the

412: characteristic polynomial of the unperturbed Floquet matrix

413: $M_0$. These roots are given by the expressions $\lambda _k = \exp

414: 2\pi \sigma _k$ where the $\left\{\sigma _k \right\}$ are the

415: eigenvalues of the matrix $D_0$ given in Appendix \ref{subsec:zop} (equation \ref{evals})

416: ; they are all distinct. However, it is possible for the multipliers $\left\{\lambda _k

417: \right\}$ to be repeated even when, as in the present case, the $\left\{\sigma _k \right\}$ are

418: distinct: if $\sigma _k - \sigma _l = i k$ for an integer $k \ne 0$,

419: then $\lambda _k = \lambda _l$. 

420: 

421: \medskip

422: A necessary condition for the onset of instability is that there be a

423: double (or higher) root of the characteristic equation, and we henceforth

424: restrict consideration to the case of double roots\footnote{Higher

425: order zeros are not ruled out in this problem, since there are three

426: independent parameters, but we do not pursue this here.}. For

427: definiteness, we suppose $\lambda _2 = \lambda _1$. Then the Puiseux

428: expansion takes the form

429: \begin{equation}\label{puiseux} \Lambda _1 \left(\epsilon \right) = \lambda _1 + \epsilon ^{1/2} 

430: \beta _{1/2} + \epsilon \beta _1 + \cdots .\end{equation}

431: Substituting into the characteristic equation (and taking into account

432: that $p_0$ and $p_0^\prime$ both vanish at $\lambda _1$) yields for

433: the coefficient $\beta _{1/2}$ of the leading-order correction the

434: equation

435: \begin{equation}\label{mu1/2} \beta _{1/2} ^2 = -2p_1\left(\lambda _1 \right)/p_0 ^{\prime \prime} 

436: \left(\lambda _1\right).\end{equation}

437: The two values of $\beta _{1/2}$ give the generic expressions for the change in a double eigenvalue, yielding a pair of roots branching

438: from the double root $\lambda _1$. However, if $p_1 \left(\lambda _1

439: \right) =0,$ this expression is inadequate and one must proceed to the

440: next term in order to determine the effect of the perturbation on the

441: stability. Under the present assumptions, it is indeed the case that $p_1$ vanishes at

442: $\lambda _1$, as we show in Appendix \ref{subsec:charpoly}\footnote{This

443: ``nongeneric'' behavior can be traced to the circumstance that the perturbation expansion takes place at a codimension-two point, i.e., where two

444: relations must hold among the parameters.}.

445: 

446: 

447: We must suppose then that the expansion of $p\left(\lambda , \epsilon

448: \right)$ is carried out to second order in $\epsilon$:

449: \begin{equation}\label{p_exp_2}

450: p\left(\lambda , \epsilon \right) = p_0\left(\lambda \right) +

451: \epsilon p_1\left(\lambda\right) +

452: \epsilon ^2 p_2\left( \lambda \right) + \cdots

453: \end{equation}

454: Then in the Puiseux expansion above $\beta _{1/2}

455: = 0$ so $\Lambda _1 = \lambda _1 + \beta _1 \epsilon + \cdots,$ and $\beta _1$ is found by solving the quadratic equation

456: \begin{equation}\label{beta1_eq}

457: \frac{1}{2} p_0^{\prime \prime}\left(\lambda _1\right)\beta _1 ^2 +

458: p_1^\prime \left( \lambda _1\right) \beta _1 + p_2\left(\lambda _1 \right) =0.\end{equation}

459: 

460: \medskip

461: In the case at hand, the common value of $\lambda _1$ and $\lambda _2$

462: lies on the unit circle. In order for the perturbed values of the

463: Floquet multipliers to lie {\em off} the unit circle (and therefore imply

464: instability), it is easy to verify that it is necessary and sufficient that $\beta _1/ \lambda

465: _1$ have a nonvanishing real part. Thus if we define

466: \begin{equation}\label{ratio}

467: \alpha = \beta _1 /\lambda _1 ,

468: \end{equation}

469: we have the following criterion:

470: \begin{proposition}\label{stab_crit}

471: Either $\alpha $ is pure-imaginary and we infer stability

472: (to leading order in $\epsilon$), or $\mbox{Re}\, \alpha \ne 0$ and

473: we infer instability.\end{proposition}

474: The magnitude of the real part of $\alpha$ is also related to the growthrate of the instability. If we define an instability increment 

475: \begin{equation}\label{incr}

476: \Delta = \left| \Lambda \right| -1,\end{equation}

477: then $\Delta = \epsilon \mbox{Re}\, \alpha$ and the growthrate is equal to $\Delta /2 \pi$, to leading order in $\epsilon$.

478: 

479: The long calculations that lead to the coefficients appearing in

480: equation (\ref{beta1_eq}) are carried out in the Appendices. In the

481: notation employed there, equation (\ref{beta1_eq}) therefore takes

482: the form

483: \begin{equation}\label{beta1_eq_3}

484: \alpha ^2 - \left\{\tilde{J}_{11} + \tilde{J}_{22} +\frac{2\pi

485: i}{\mu}\nu \left[\omega _1 + \omega _2\right] \right\} \alpha + \left|

486: \begin{array}{cc} \tilde{J}_{11}+ 2\pi \nu \sigma _1/\mu

487: &\tilde{J}_{12}\\ \tilde{J}_{21}&\tilde{J}_{22} +2\pi \nu 

488: \sigma _2/\mu

489: \end{array} \right| = 0,

490: \end{equation}

491: In equation (\ref{beta1_eq_3}), $\alpha$

492: has the meaning of Proposition \ref{stab_crit} above, and the symbols

493: $\tilde{J}_{ij}$ are defined in Appendix \ref{distinct} (equation \ref{Jij}). 

494: There are obvious modifications of this formula if $\lambda _k =

495: \lambda _l$ instead of $\lambda _1 = \lambda _2$.

496: 

497: \subsection{The Resonant Cases}\label{kne2}

498: The resonant cases for $\epsilon = 0$ (circular streamlines) are those

499: parameter values $(\mu,\eta)$ such that $\omega _j - \omega _l =k$,

500: where $k$ is an integer. We'll find that these can be written in the

501: form $\mu = f\left(\eta\right)$ (e.g., equation (\ref{pure_hydro_res}

502: below). Since $\epsilon = 0$, the $\mu$ values in question are those

503: that were designated $\mu _0$ in equation (\ref{mu_expansion})

504: above. We no longer need the designation $\mu _0$ and, in the relations

505: below, use the symbol $\mu$ in its place.

506: 

507: If $k \ne \pm 2$ the matrix $\tilde{J}$ is

508: diagonal (see equation \ref {newJtilde} below) and equation

509: (\ref{beta1_eq_3}) has the roots $\alpha = J_{11} + 2\pi i \nu \omega

510: _1/\mu$ and $\alpha = J_{22}+ 2\pi i \nu \omega _2/\mu$ where $\sigma

511: _j = i \omega _j$ for $j=1,2,3,4).$ It is easy to check that these

512: diagonal entries are pure-imaginary (cf. equations \ref{diagonal_eq}

513: and \ref{Tinverse} below) and therefore, in accordance with

514: Proposition \ref{stab_crit}, there is no instability to leading order

515: in $\epsilon$. We therefore now consider the only cases $(k=\pm 2)$ that

516: can lead to instability to this order.

517: 

518: \medskip

519: Recall that the original parameters of the problem are $\epsilon$ --

520: representing the departure from axial symmetry of the undisturbed

521: streamlines -- $\mu = k_3/k_0$ -- representing the vertical wavenumber

522: --and $\eta = k_0B$. The auxiliary parameters $m=\mu \eta$ and $q=\mu

523: \sqrt{1 + \eta ^2}$ are introduced to simplify the notation. With the

524: frequencies taken in the order

525: \begin{equation}\label{four_freqs} \left( \omega _1, \omega _2, \omega _3, \omega _4 \right) = \left( \mu + q, -\mu -q, \mu -q, -\mu +q \right) \end{equation}

526: the replacement $\mu \to -\mu$ results in the same frequencies in the opposite order.  We may therefore assume without loss of generality that

527: $\mu > 0$.  Further scrutiny of the formula (\ref{four_freqs}) shows that we need only consider the following four, distinct, $k=2$ resonances.

528: 

529: \subsubsection{Case 1. $\omega _1 - \omega _2 = 2$}\label{resonance1}

530: The resonant modes are those that reduce, when $\eta =0$, to the

531: purely hydrodynamic modes. This case therefore represents the

532: modification, due to the presence of the vertical magnetic field, of

533: the universal elliptical instability.  In this case $\omega _1 = -

534: \omega _2 =\mu + q=1$, implying that

535: \begin{equation}\label{pure_hydro_res} \mu = \frac{1}{1+ \sqrt{1 + \eta ^2}}.\end{equation} 

536: This ratio changes from $1/2$ at $\eta =0$ to $0$ as $\eta \to \infty$.

537: Evaluating the integrals defining $\left(\tilde{J}_{ij}\right)$ (equation \ref{Jij} below) and

538: solving equation (\ref{beta1_eq_3}) above, we find

539: \begin{equation}\label{alpha_res1}

540: \alpha ^2 = \left[\frac{\pi}{2}\left(1+\mu \right)^2\right]^2 - \pi ^2

541: \left[\frac{2\nu }{\mu} - \mu \left(1+\mu

542: \right)\right]^2. \end{equation} This has a maximum instability

543: increment (when $\nu = \mu ^2 \left(1+\mu \right)/2$) given

544: (suppressing a factor of $\epsilon$) by

545: \[ \alpha _{max} = \frac{\pi}{2}\left(1+\mu \right)^2.\]

546: In the pure-hydrodynamic limit $\eta = 0$ we find $\mu = 1/2$ and

547: therefore $\alpha _{max} = 9\pi/8$. Since the growthrate is given by

548: $\alpha \epsilon /2\pi$, this gives a maximum growthrate of $9\epsilon

549: /16$, in agreement with previous results obtained by other methods \citep{wal,jg}. In the limit $\eta \rightarrow \infty$ this

550: maximum instability increment tends to the finite limit $\pi /2$,

551: about half its value in the pure-hydrodynamic limit. 

552: 

553: This instability has a {\em bandwidth} $\left(\nu _+ - \nu _-

554: \right)\epsilon$ which is, for given $\epsilon$ and $\eta$, the length

555: of the $\mu$-interval for which the unperturbed configuration is

556: unstable. It is determined by the values of $\nu$ that make the real

557: part of $\alpha$ vanish. These may be read off equation

558: (\ref{alpha_res1}) above:

559: \[ \nu _+ = \mu \left(1+\mu \right) \left(1+3\mu \right)/4,\; \nu _- = - \mu \left(1 -\mu ^2\right)/4.\]

560: In the limit $\eta \to 0$ (the pure-hydrodynamic case) these give $\nu

561: _+ = 15/32$ and $\nu _- = -3/32$. These values of $\nu _\pm$ can also

562: be inferred from Waleffe's treatment of the pure-hydrodynamic case. In

563: the limit of large magnetic parameter $\eta$, the width of the band

564: tends to zero.

565: 

566: 

567: \subsubsection{Case 2. $\omega _1 - \omega _3 = 2$}\label{resonance2} 

568: The resonant modes consist of a hydrodynamic mode and a purely

569: magnetic mode (one frequency would vanish if $\eta = 0$).

570: In this case $q=1$, implying that $ \omega _1= \mu +1$, $ \omega _ 3= \mu -1$ 

571: and

572: \begin{equation}\label{equ:reshm}  

573: \mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\eta ^2}}.

574: \end{equation}

575: 

576: Thus the ratio $\mu$ changes from $1$ at $\eta=0$ to $0$ as $\eta \to

577: \infty$.

578: This represents a 'mixed mode', i.e., the resonance is between a

579: purely hydrodynamic mode and a purely magnetic one. Evaluating the

580: integrals and solving the quadratic (\ref{beta1_eq_3}), we find

581: 

582: \begin{equation}\label{alpha_res2}

583: \alpha= i\pi \nu \left( \frac{2 \nu }{\mu} -1+\mu ^2   \right) \pm \sqrt{D}

584: \end{equation}

585: where

586: \[ D = -\pi ^2 \left[ \frac{2\nu }{\mu} - \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\mu ^4\right)\right]\left[\frac{2\nu }{\mu} - \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\mu ^2\right)\left(3\mu ^2 -1 \right)\right].\]

587: If $D<0$ then $\alpha$ is pure-imaginary and the unperturbed configuration is stable, so instability prevails if and only if $D > 0$.

588: 

589: Instability can indeed occur and has its maximal increment when $\nu = \mu ^3\left(1-\mu ^2 \right)/2$. This maximal increment is (except for a factor of $\epsilon$)

590: \[ \left( \mbox{Re}\, \alpha \right)_{max} = \frac{\pi}{2}\left(1-\mu

591: \right)^2 .\]

592: This ranges from $0$ when $\eta = 0$ to $\pi /2$ as $\eta \to

593: \infty$. 

594: 

595: The width of instability band can be calculated as in the preceding case by finding the values of $\mu$ for which $D=0$. These are

596: \[ \nu _+ = \frac{1}{4}\mu \left(1 - \mu ^4 \right) \; \mbox{and}\; \nu

597: _- = \frac{1}{4}\mu \left(1-\mu ^2 \right)\left(3\mu ^2 -1 \right).\]

598: 

599: \subsubsection{Case 3. $\omega _4 - \omega _3 =2$}\label{resonance3}

600: These are the purely magnetic modes, which play no role if $\eta = 0$.

601:  For this case we have $q - \mu =1$ implying, for fixed $\eta$ that

602: \begin{equation}\label{equ:resmm}

603: \mu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\eta ^2} -1}.

604: \end{equation}

605: 

606: Since $\mu $ cannot exceed $1$, this resonance can only occur for

607: sufficiently large values of $\eta $, namely

608: \begin{equation}\label{eta_big}

609: \eta > \sqrt{3}.\end{equation}

610: For a given wavelength $k_0$ this would require a sufficiently large

611: magnetic field $B$. When this

612: condition is satisfied, we have $ \omega _4= 1 =- \omega _3 .$

613: The formula for the instability increment $\alpha$ becomes

614: \begin{equation}\label{alpha_res3}

615: \alpha ^2=\left[\frac{\pi }{2}\left(1-\mu \right)^2 \right]^2 - \pi ^2 \left[\frac{2\nu }{\mu} + \mu \left(1 -\mu \right) \right]^2.\end{equation}

616: The maximum instability increment for given $\epsilon$ is (again

617: suppressing a factor of $\epsilon$)

618: \[ \alpha _{max} = \frac{\pi }{2}\left(1-\mu \right)^2,\]

619: which occurs for $\nu = -\mu ^2 \left(1-\mu \right)/2.$

620: It vanishes in the limit $\eta =0$ and tends to $\pi/2$ as $\eta \to \infty$. The upper and lower edges of the band of instability are expressed by the formulas $\mu = \mu _0 + \nu _\pm \epsilon$ where $\nu _\pm$ may be determined from equation (\ref{alpha_res3}) by requiring $\alpha$ to vanish. One finds

621: \[ \nu _+ = \frac{1}{4}\mu \left(1-\mu \right) \left(1-3\mu \right) \; \mbox{and} \; \nu _- = -\frac{1}{4}\mu \left(1-\mu ^2\right).\]

622: The bandwidth is therefore

623: \[ \nu _+ - \nu _- = \frac{1}{2}\mu \left(1-\mu \right)^2.\]

624: This vanishes both in the limit as $\eta \to 0$ and in the limit as $\eta \to \infty$. The maximum bandwidth occurs when $\mu = 1/3$ or $\eta = \sqrt{15}$.

625: 

626: \subsubsection{Case 4. $\omega _1 - \omega _4 =2$}\label{resonance4}

627: 

628: For this $\mu =1$. It is clear from the expressions for the matrix $J$

629: that the latter vanishes in this case. This leads to pure-imaginary values of $\alpha$ and therefore there is no

630: instability associated with this resonance.

631: 

632: 

633: \section{Numerical results}\label{numerical}

634: In this section we present a selection of numerical results. These are

635: obtained by integrating the system (\ref{c_eq}) to obtain the

636: fundamental matrix solution $\Phi \left(t,\epsilon,\mu,\eta\right)$

637: and evaluating it at $t=2\pi$ to get the Floquet matrix

638: $M\left(\epsilon,\mu ,\eta,\right)$. For fixed $\eta$, the eigenvalue

639: of maximum modulus is found as a function of $E$ (rather than

640: $\epsilon$) and $\mu$, and the regions of the $E \mu$ plane where this

641: maximum modulus exceeds one are distinguished. We have carried this

642: out to $E = 1.6$ ($\epsilon = 0.4875)$ in the figures although there is no

643: limitation on the size of $E$, or of $\epsilon$, in this method.

644: 

645: In Figure \ref{hydromode}, we have taken the magnetic parameter equal

646: to zero in the left-hand panel, so this represents the purely

647: hydrodynamic case studied originally by \citet{bay} and \citet{rtp} and subsequently by others. For $\eta > 0$, a mixed mode of

648: interaction involving both hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic modes

649: comes into existence, and this is shown in the right-hand panel of

650: Figure \ref{hydromode}, where $\eta =1$. This is too small for the remaining

651: leading-order instability to appear.

652: \placefigure{hydromode}

653: \begin{figure}

654: %\figurenum{hydromode}

655: \plotone{f1.eps}

656: \caption{\small On the left is the case $\eta =0$, i.e., the purely

657: hydrodynamic case considered earlier by several other authors. It is

658: shown here to contrast it with the case when the magnetic field is not

659: zero. The lines of asterisks indicate the same stability boundaries obtained from the asymptotic formulas $\mu = \mu_0 + \nu _{\pm}\epsilon$; this approximation is seen to be quite good. It is typical of the other cases considered. On the right is the case $\eta =1$, showing both the effect of

660: the magnetic field on the hydrodynamic mode and the existence of a new

661: mode of instability that is due to the presence of the magnetic

662: field.}\label{hydromode}

663: \end{figure}

664: That remaining instability, which represents a resonant interaction

665: between two modes that owe their existence to the presence of the

666: magnetic field, is indicated in Figure \ref{mixedmode} for a magnetic

667: parameter $\eta = 2$ (right-hand panel), slightly greater than the minimum value

668: ($\sqrt{3}$) for the existence of this instability.

669: \placefigure{mixedmode}

670: \begin{figure}

671: %\figurenum{mixedmode}

672: \plotone{f2.eps}

673: \caption{\small On the left is the case $\eta =2$. Three regions of

674: instability occur here. The lowest of these is the modification of the

675: hydrodynamic-mode instability indicated in Figure \ref{hydromode}. The

676: middle region refers to the mixed hydrodynamic-magnetic mode. The

677: uppermost region, very thin and labeled MAGNETIC MODE, exists only for

678: values of $\eta$ exceeding $\sqrt{3}$, so is poorly developed for this

679: value of $\eta$.  On the right is the case $\eta = \sqrt{15} \approx

680: 3.873$, for which the width of the uppermost, purely magnetic, mode

681: band is at its greatest. Note however that the vertical scale is

682: compressed relative to the diagram on the left, exaggerating the

683: widths of these bands by about a factor of two.}\label{mixedmode}

684: \end{figure}

685: 

686: The asymptotic formulas imply that the maximal growthrate (or

687: equivalently the maximal instability increment $\Delta$) for each of

688: the wedges of instability tends to a fixed value as the magnetic

689: parameter $\eta$ increases. This is illustrated in Figure

690: \ref{grra}. However, the asymptotic formulas for the growthrates are

691: less accurate than those for the stability boundaries, for the larger

692: values of $E$. 

693: \placefigure{grra}

694: \begin{figure}

695: %\figurenum{grra}

696: \plotone{f3.eps}

697: \caption{The left-hand panel shows the instability increment $\Delta$ as a function

698: of $\mu$ for a fixed value of the magnetic parameter ($\eta =0$) and the ellipticity ($E = 1.3$). The right-hand panel does the same except that $\eta = \sqrt{15}$.}\label{grra}

699: \end{figure}

700: 

701: In identifying these tongues, we have made repeated use of the

702: asymptotic formulas presented earlier. The numerical procedure also

703: picks up some further tongues, related to higher-order resonances, that are excluded by the procedure leading to the asymptotic formulas. These we

704: have mostly ignored on the ground that they are too weak and occupy too small

705: a region of the parameter space to be significant, but we show one such resonance tongue for two values of $\eta$ in Figure \ref{ho}

706: \placefigure{ho}

707: \begin{figure}

708: %\figurenum{ho}

709: \plotone{f4.eps}

710: \caption{These show higher order wedges of instability. Both are cases

711: of resonance between the two hydrodynamic modes but with

712: $\omega_1-\omega_2 =4$, rather than $2$. The left-hand panel shows the

713: instability wedge when $\eta = 1$, the right-hand panel shows the

714: corresponding wedge when $\eta = \sqrt{15}$.}\label{ho}

715: \end{figure}

716: 

717: 

718: 

719: \section{Upper bound on fieldstrength}\label{sec:upperbound}

720: 

721: The results of \S\S \ref{kne2} and \ref{numerical} show that magnetoelliptic

722: instability occurs in vertically

723: unbounded systems whatever the fieldstrength, and that the growth rates are

724: relatively insensitive to the magnetic fieldstrength parameter $\eta$. The

725: loci of instability in the $(E, \mu)$ plane, however, do depend on $\eta$. As

726: $\eta\rightarrow\infty$, the resonant $\mu$, in all three cases,

727: scales as $\eta^{-1}$ and the magnetic tension parameter $m\rightarrow 1$. This

728: is a consequence of the resonant character of the instability. Since 

729: the mode frequency must be close to the rotational frequency, the Alfv\'en

730: frequency $m$ cannot be too large. As $B\rightarrow\infty$, $k_3$ must approach

731: zero.

732: 

733: In a system of finite vertical thickness $H$, $k_3$ cannot drop below $\chi/H$,

734: where $\chi$ is a factor of order unity. Therefore, if $v_A$ exceeds $\Omega

735: H/\chi$, we expect the magnetoelliptic instability to be suppressed. A precise

736: upper bound on $v_A$ follows from eqn. (A3) and application of the resonance

737: conditions; equations (\ref{pure_hydro_res}), (\ref{equ:reshm}), and

738: (\ref{equ:resmm}). 

739: In Cases 1 and 2, instability requires $m^2\le 1$. Case 3 requires

740: $m^2\le 3$. Therefore, magnetoelliptic instability requires $v_A\le\sqrt{3}

741: \Omega H/\chi$ (there is a correction of order $\epsilon$ due to the finite

742: bandwidth). The corresponding fieldstrength

743:  is comparable to the maximum value of the field at

744: which the magnetorotational instability can operate \citep{mri}.

745: 

746: \section{Discussion}\label{discussion}

747: We have explored the effect of a uniform, vertical magnetic field on

748: the stability of planar, incompressible flow with elliptical

749: streamlines in an unbounded medium, in the approximation of ideal

750: magnetohydrodynamics. In the absence of magnetic fields, flows with

751: elliptical streamlines having ellipticity parameter $\epsilon$ [see

752: equation (\ref{equ:definitions})] are known to be unstable to

753: perturbations with wavevectors that are transverse to the plane of the

754: flow (the ``elliptical instability"). Our first conclusion is that

755: this elliptical instability persists in the presence of a vertical

756: magnetic field: the latter decreases the maximum growthrate but fails

757: to suppress the instability, no matter how large the magnetic-field

758: parameter becomes. It can be compared with the conclusion of

759: \citet{rk94} that a toroidal magnetic field has a stabilizing

760: influence. Kerswell's analysis holds for small $\epsilon$ only and

761: shows that the growthrate decreases with magnetic field in that

762: limit. Our result, which holds for a vertical magnetic field, shows a

763: similar trend for small values of the magnetic-field parameter, but

764: this trend never results in complete stabilization of the elliptical

765: instability with increasing magnetic field.

766: 

767: A second conclusion is that there are further instabilities associated

768: with the presence of the magnetic field. One of these, for which the

769: eigenvector is a mixture of hydrodynamic and magnetic modes, occurs

770: for all values of the magnetic field parameter. Another, for which the

771: eigenvector is a combination of magnetic modes only, sets in for

772: values of the magnetic-field parameter exceeding a certain threshold

773: value ($\eta > \sqrt{3}$). 

774: In all three of these instabilities, for large magnetic fields, the

775: wave vector makes only a small angle with the plane of the

776: unperturbed flow, reflecting the familiar tendency for dynamics to become

777: nearly 2-dimensional in a strong, well ordered magnetic field. This is

778: reflected in Figure \ref{mixedmode}, which shows that as $\eta$ increases,

779: the unstable wedges are pushed to smaller $\mu$. Although the

780: unstable fraction of

781: the $(E,\mu)$ plane decreases with increasing $\eta$ (except for a very

782: slight maximum at $\eta\sim$ 2.18, reflecting the onset of instability

783: between magnetic modes), the separation between the unstable wedges also

784: decreases.  While

785: the nonlinear evolution of the unstable

786: system is beyond the scope of this work, the destabilization of a nearly

787: continuous swath of parameter space may have consequences for the 

788: interactions between unstable

789: modes.

790: In all three

791: cases, the maximum instability increment tends

792: to $\epsilon \pi/2$, i.e., the maximum growthrate of the unstable

793: modes tends, in dimensional units, to $\epsilon\Omega /4$. 

794: 

795: All three of these instabilities may be relevant in accretion-disk settings. 

796: In systems of finite thickness $H$, however, the instability is suppressed if

797: the Alfv\'en speed $v_A$ exceeds a critical value of order $\Omega H$.

798: Magnetorotational instabilities are quenched at approximately the same

799: fieldstrength \citep{mri}.

800: The growth rate of magnetoelliptical instabilities is smaller than

801: that of magnetorotational instabilities by a factor of order $\epsilon$, and

802: thus they are not necessarily the primary instability in magnetized disks.

803: They may well play a secondary

804: role by breaking up eddies or vortices generated by other

805: mechanisms. 

806: 

807: Magnetoelliptic instabilities may also occur in the inner parts of

808: barred galaxies, in which the gas flow is slightly elliptical and the

809: magnetic field, at least in the Milky Way, has a vertical component

810: \citep{mor}. In such settings, the instabilities could be a source of

811: turbulence, possibly affecting the mass supply to a central compact

812: object.

813: 

814: \acknowledgements

815: 

816: We are happy to acknowledge the referee for useful comments. Material

817:  support for this work was provided by NSF grants AST-0098701,

818: AST-0328821, PHY-0215581, and the Graduate School of the University of

819: Wisconsin, Madison.

820: \appendix

821: 

822: \pagebreak

823: \noindent {\Huge \bf Appendices} 

824: 

825: \noindent We carry out calculations leading to

826: the coefficients appearing in equation (\ref{beta1_eq}) in a series of

827: steps. Since $p(\lambda)= |M - \lambda I|$, with $M$ given by

828: equations (\ref{M_exp_2}) and (\ref{M0andM1}), we begin with the expression for $M$.

829: 

830: \section{The Expansion for M}

831: \subsection{Zero-order Problem and Solution for $M$}\label{subsec:zop}

832: The matrix $D\left(t, \epsilon , \mu\right)$ has only two entries

833: that depend on $\epsilon$: $D_{11}$ and $D_{21}$. If, therefore, we

834: write the Taylor expansion

835: \begin{equation}\label{D_expansion} D\left(t, \epsilon, \mu \right) = D_0 \left(t, \mu \right) + \epsilon D_\epsilon \left( t,\mu \right) + \cdots \end{equation}

836: then

837: \[ D_0 \left(t,\mu \right) = D\left(t, 0, \mu \right) \; \mbox{and}\; D_\epsilon \left(t, \mu \right) = D_\epsilon \left(t, 0, \mu \right), \]

838: where $D_\epsilon = \partial D/\partial \epsilon$.

839: For $D_0$ we find the constant matrix

840: \begin{equation}\label{D0_matrix}

841: D_0\left(t, \mu \right) = D_0\left(\mu \right)= \left(

842: \begin{array}{cccc}0&-2&im&0\\2\mu ^2&0&0&im\\im&0&0&0\\0&im&0&0

843: \end{array}\right).\end{equation} Its eigenvalues are

844: \begin{equation}\label{evals}

845: \sigma _1 = i\left(\mu + q\right),\sigma _2 = -i\left(\mu +

846: q\right),\sigma _3 = i\left(\mu - q\right),\sigma _4 = -i\left(\mu -

847: q\right),\end{equation} where $q = \sqrt{\mu ^2 + m^2} = \mu \sqrt{1 +

848: \eta ^2}.$ These are distinct and nonzero as long as $\mu \ne 0$ and

849: $\eta \ne 0$, which we assume to be the case.  The first two

850: correspond to ``hydrodynamic modes'' since they reduce, when $\eta=0$,

851: to the eigenvalues of the purely hydrodynamic case. The second two

852: refer to ``magnetic modes'' since they are zero in that limit. These

853: are all of stable type, corresponding to frequencies $\omega _k$, $k=

854: 1, \ldots, 4$. Regarding the matrix $D_\epsilon$, one can easily work it out

855: from the expression (\ref{D_matrix}) above: all its entries vanish

856: except $\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{11}$ and $\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{21}.$ One finds

857: \begin{equation}\label{D11}\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{11} = i\left(1-\mu

858:  ^2\right)\left(e^{2it} - e^{-2it}\right),\end{equation} and

859: 

860: \begin{equation}\label{D21}\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{21} = \mu ^2 \left(1-\mu ^2 \right)

861:  \left(e^{2it} + e^{-21t} -2 \right) + 2\mu \nu.

862:  \end{equation}

863: 

864: 

865: 

866: \bigskip

867: 

868: tFrom the matrices $D_0$ and $D_\epsilon$ we can construct the matrices

869: $M_0\left(\mu \right)$ and $M_\epsilon\left(\mu\right)$ needed in the

870: formula (\ref{M0andM1}) for $M_1$. For $M_0$ we simply have $\exp {2\pi

871: D_0}$. For $M_\epsilon$ we proceed as follows. 

872: On the finite time-interval $[0,2\pi]$ we may write

873: \[ \Phi \left(t,\epsilon ,\mu \right) = \Phi _0\left(t,\mu\right) + \epsilon \Phi _1 \left(t, \mu \right) + \ldots, \; \Phi _1 \left(0, \mu \right)=0. \]

874: Substituting this in the

875: differential equation (\ref{c_eq}), expanding to first order in

876: $\epsilon$, using the variation of constants formula (cf. \citet{cl}) and setting $t=2\pi$, we get

877: 

878: \begin{equation}\label{floquet_matrix}

879: M\left(\epsilon , \mu \right) = M_0\left(\mu \right)\left(I + \epsilon \int _0^{2\pi} \Phi_0^{-1}\left(s, \mu \right)D_\epsilon\left(s,\mu \right) \Phi _0

880: \left(s, \mu \right)ds\right).\end{equation}

881: This expresses the Floquet matrix correctly to linear order in $\epsilon$, and this will turn out to be sufficient for our purpose. The formula above identifies $M_\epsilon\left(0,\mu\right)$:

882: \begin{equation}\label{M_epsilon}

883: M_\epsilon \left(0,\mu \right) = M_0 \left(\mu \right) \int _0^T \Phi

884: _0^{-1}\left(s, \mu \right)D_\epsilon\left(s,\mu \right) \Phi _0

885: \left(s, \mu \right)ds .\end{equation}

886: We next proceed to simplify this expression.

887:  

888: 

889: \subsection{A further transformation}\label{distinct}

890: The characteristic polynomial given in equation (\ref{charpol}) above 

891: is the same in any coordinate system, so we shall choose one to simplify the unperturbed Floquet matrix $M_0\left(\mu\right)$.

892: 

893: If $\mu \ne 0$ and $\eta \ne 0$ the eigenvalues $\{\sigma _k\}$ given

894: by equation (\ref{evals}) are all distinct, so the 

895: eigenvectors are linearly independent and the matrix $T\left(\mu\right)$ 

896: formed from their columns diagonalizes $D_0$:

897: \[\tilde{D}_0 =

898: \mbox{diag}\left(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4\right),\]  

899: where the tilde indicates the transformed matrix: $\tilde{D}=T^{-1}DT$.

900: We shall need to know $T$ and $T^{-1}$ explicitly. 

901: It is a

902: straightforward matter to show that any eigenvector of $D_0$ must have

903: the structure (up to a constant multiple)

904: \[ \xi = \left(\begin{array}{c} \sigma \\-\left(\sigma ^2 +

905: m^2\right)/2\\im \\ -i m\left(\sigma ^2 + m^2 \right)/2\sigma

906: \end{array} \right).\]

907: Substituting the particular values of $\sigma$ given in equation

908: (\ref{evals}) gives the four columns of the matrix $T$, and from this

909: we can construct its inverse. One finds

910: \begin{equation}\label{Tmatrix}

911: T = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}\sigma _1&\sigma _2 & \sigma _3 &\sigma

912: _4\\ -i\mu \sigma_1 & i\mu \sigma_2 & -i\mu \sigma_3 & i\mu \sigma_4

913: \\ im & im & im& im \\m\mu & -m\mu & m\mu & -m\mu \end{array}\right),

914: \end{equation}

915: and 

916: \begin{equation}\label{Tinverse}

917: T^{-1} = \frac{1}{4mq} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} -im & m/\mu & \sigma

918: _3 & i\sigma _3/\mu \\ im & m/\mu & \sigma _3 & -i\sigma _3/\mu \\ im

919: & -m/\mu & -\sigma _1 & -i \sigma _1 /\mu\\ -im & -m/\mu & -\sigma _1 &

920: i\sigma _1/ \mu

921: \end{array}\right).\end{equation}

922: The matrices $T$ and $T^{-1}$ depend on $\mu$ and on $\eta$ through the parameters 

923: \begin{equation}\label{mqdef}m=\mu \eta \; \mbox{and} \; q=\sqrt{\mu ^2 + m^2} = \mu \sqrt{1+\eta ^2}.\end{equation}

924: 

925: \medskip

926: In place of equation (\ref{floquet_matrix}) we now obtain

927: \begin{equation}\label{Mtilde}

928: \tilde{M} = \tilde{M}_0\left(I + \epsilon \tilde{J}\right),

929: \end{equation}

930: where 

931: \begin{equation}\label{Jeq}

932: \tilde{J}\left(\mu \right) = \int _0^{2\pi}

933: \tilde{\Phi}^{-1}\left(t,\mu \right)

934: \tilde{D}_1\left(t,\mu \right) \tilde{\Phi} \left(t,\mu \right)

935: \,dt.\end{equation}

936: Because the eigenvalues $\{\sigma _k \}$ are distinct, the matrix

937: $\tilde{\Phi} = \exp \left\{ \tilde{D}_0 t \right\}$ takes the simple, 

938: diagonal form

939: \begin{equation}\label{fundmatdistinct}

940: \tilde{\Phi}\left(t\right) = \mbox{diag}\, \left(\exp \left(\sigma _1 t

941: \right),\exp \left(\sigma _2 t

942: \right),\exp \left(\sigma _3 t

943: \right),\exp \left(\sigma _4 t

944: \right) \right)

945: \end{equation}

946: The $ij$ entry of the matrix

947: $\tilde{D}_1$

948: is (since $D_\epsilon$ has only two nonzero entries)

949: \begin{equation}\label{D1ij}

950: \left(\tilde{D}_1\right)_{ij} = T_{1j}\left(\left( T^{-1}\right)_{i1}

951: \left(D_\epsilon\right)_{11} + \left(T^{-1}\right)_{i2} \left(D_\epsilon\right)_{21}\right).

952: \end{equation}

953: As a result, the $ij$ entry of the matrix $\tilde{J}$ providing the

954: leading-order perturbation of the Floquet matrix is

955: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Jij}

956: \tilde{J}_{ij} &=& T_{1j}\left(T^{-1}\right)_{i1}\int _0^{2\pi}

957: e^{\left(\sigma _j - \sigma _i

958: \right)t}\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{11}\left(t\right) \,dt \nonumber \\ &+&T_{1j}\left(T^{-1}\right)_{i2}\int _0^{2\pi}

959: e^{\left(\sigma _j - \sigma _i

960: \right)t}\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{21}\left(t\right) \,dt .

961: \end{eqnarray}

962: This enables us to find $\tilde{M}_\epsilon \left(0,\mu\right)$.

963: 

964: For the matrix $\tilde{M}_0\left(\mu\right)$ we have the expression 

965: \begin{equation}\label{tildeM0}

966: \tilde{M}_0\left(\mu\right)=\tilde{M}\left(0,\mu\right) = \mbox{diag} \left( \lambda _1 \left(\mu \right),  \ldots , \lambda _4\left(\mu  \right) \right)

967: \end{equation}

968: with $\lambda _k = 2\pi \sigma _k$. Recall that in order to construct $\tilde{M}_1$ we need also the derivative of this matrix with respect to $\mu$,

969: \begin{equation}\label{tildeM0prime}

970: \tilde{M}_0^\prime \left(\mu\right)=\tilde{M}_\mu \left(0,\mu\right) = \mbox{diag} \left( \lambda _1^\prime \left(\mu \right), \ldots , \lambda _4^\prime \left(\mu \right) \right).

971: \end{equation}

972: According

973: to equations (\ref{evals}) and (\ref{mqdef}), each eigenvalue $\sigma _k$ of $D_0$ is

974: linear in $\mu$. Therefore $\sigma _k ^\prime \left(\mu \right) =

975: \sigma _k \left(\mu \right)/\mu $. Since $\lambda _k = \exp \left(2\pi

976: \sigma _k \right)$, we have

977: \begin{equation}\label{lambda_prime}

978: \lambda _k ^\prime \left(\mu \right) = \lambda _k \left(\mu \right) 2

979: \pi \sigma _k \left(\mu \right) /\mu = \lambda _k 2\pi i \omega _k /\mu .\end{equation}

980: 

981: The formulas of this section allow one to determine the matrices

982: $\tilde{M}_0$ and $\tilde{M}_1$. To produce from these the

983: coefficients $p_j\left(\lambda\right)$ appearing in equations

984: (\ref{p_exp_2}) and (\ref{beta1_eq}) above, we need formulas for the

985: derivatives of a determinant. These are presented in Section \ref{detderivs} below and applied in the following section.

986: 

987: \subsection{The Expansion for $p\left(\lambda,\epsilon\right)$}\label{subsec:charpoly}

988: 

989: We can now find the required expansion for $p\left(\lambda , \epsilon

990: \right)$ by identifying the matrix $A$ of Section \ref{detderivs} below with $\tilde{M} -\lambda I$ and

991: the coefficients $q_k$ with the coefficients $p_k \left(\lambda

992: \right)$ of equation (\ref{p_exp_2}). We obtain these coefficients by

993: writing $a_k = \lambda _k - \lambda,$ $A_{kl} ^\prime\left(0\right) =

994: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right) _{kl}$ and $A_{kl} ^{\prime

995: \prime}\left(0\right) = 2\left(\tilde{M}_2\right) _{kl}$. This gives

996: for $p_1$ the following expression (with $n=4$):

997: 

998: \begin{eqnarray}\label{p1}

999:  p_1 \left(\lambda\right) &=&

1000: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{11}\left(\lambda _2- \lambda \right)

1001: \left(\lambda _3 - \lambda \right)  \left(\lambda _4 - \lambda

1002: \right) \\&+& \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{22}\left(\lambda _1 - \lambda

1003: \right) \left(\lambda _3 - \lambda \right)  \left(\lambda _4 -

1004: \lambda \right) + {\nonumber}\\&+&

1005: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{33}\left(\lambda _1- \lambda \right)

1006: \left(\lambda _2 - \lambda \right)\left(\lambda _4 -

1007: \lambda \right){\nonumber}\\&+&

1008: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{44}\left(\lambda _1- \lambda \right)

1009: \left(\lambda _2 - \lambda \right)\left(\lambda _3 -

1010: \lambda \right){\nonumber}

1011: ,\end{eqnarray} and there is a similar,

1012: lengthier expression for $p_2$ obtained by making the corresponding substitutions in  equation (\ref{det_der_2}) below. 

1013: 

1014: The development thus far has required

1015: no assumptions regarding the multipliers $\left\{\lambda _k \right\}$.

1016: We now suppose that $\lambda _1 = \lambda _2$. It is then clear from

1017: the expression above that $p_1\left(\lambda _1 \right) =0,$ as

1018: asserted in Section \ref{char_poly}. The coefficients appearing in

1019: equation (\ref{beta1_eq}) are now easily found to be

1020: \begin{equation}\label{p0pp_eq}

1021: p_0^{\prime \prime }\left(\lambda _1\right) = 2\left(\lambda _3 -

1022: \lambda _1\right) \left( \lambda _4 - \lambda _1 \right),

1023: \end{equation}

1024: \begin{equation}\label{p1p_eq}

1025: p_1^\prime \left(\lambda _1\right) =

1026: -\left\{\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{11} +

1027: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{22}\right\} \left(\lambda _3 - \lambda

1028: _1\right)\left( \lambda _4 - \lambda _1 \right) \end{equation}

1029: and

1030: \begin{equation}\label{p2_eq}

1031: p_2 \left(\lambda _1\right) = \left| \begin{array}{cc}

1032: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{11}&\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{12}\\\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{21}&\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{22}

1033: \end{array} \right| \left(\lambda _3 - \lambda

1034: _1\right) \left( \lambda _4 - \lambda _1

1035: \right). \end{equation} Equation (\ref{beta1_eq}) therefore takes the

1036: form

1037: \begin{equation}\label{beta1_eq_2}

1038: \beta _1 ^2 + \left\{\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{11} -

1039: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{22}\right\} \beta _1 + \left|

1040: \begin{array}{cc}

1041: \left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{11}&\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{12}\\\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{21}&\left(\tilde{M}_1\right)_{22}

1042: \end{array} \right| = 0 .

1043: \end{equation}

1044: 

1045: We note that the calculation of the perturbation of $\lambda _1$ to first order in $\epsilon$, which

1046: requires expanding

1047: $p$ to second order, requires the expansion of the

1048: Floquet matrix $\tilde{M}\left(\epsilon\right) = \tilde{M}_0 +

1049: \tilde{M}_1 \epsilon + \cdots $ only to first order.

1050: 

1051: We have assumed that the coincident roots are the first two, $\lambda

1052: _1 = \lambda _2$. If instead we should have $\lambda _k = \lambda _l$,

1053: equation (\ref{beta1_eq_2}) is modified by the replacement $(1,2) \to

1054: (k,l)$.

1055: 

1056: Equation (\ref{beta1_eq_2}), together with equations (\ref{Mtilde}),

1057: (\ref{tildeM0}), (\ref{tildeM0prime}) and (\ref{lambda_prime}) leads

1058: to equation (\ref{beta1_eq_3}) of the text. What remains is to

1059: evaluate the integrals defining $\tilde{J}$, and we now turn to this.

1060: 

1061: \subsection{Calculating the Elements of $\tilde{M}_1$}\label{subsec:elements}

1062: By equations (\ref{M0andM1}) and (\ref{M_epsilon}) above (see also

1063: equation \ref{Jeq}), the matrix $\tilde{M}_1$ is given by the formula

1064: \begin{equation}\label{M1tilde_def}

1065: \tilde{M}_1 = \tilde{M}_0 \left(\mu \right)\tilde{J} + \nu \tilde{M}_\mu \left(0,\mu \right)

1066: \end{equation}

1067: where the entries of $\tilde{J}$ are given by equation

1068: (\ref{Jij}). From equations (\ref{D11}) and (\ref{D21})

1069: it is a straightforward matter to carry out the integrations. We'll use for $T$ the matrix given above in equation (\ref{Tmatrix}). Since for this matrix $T_{1j} = \sigma _j= i \omega _j$, the formula for the entries of $\tilde{J}$ becomes

1070: \begin{equation}\label{newJtilde}

1071: \tilde{J}_{ij} = \sigma _j \left\{ \left(T^{-1}\right) _{i1} \int _0

1072: ^{2\pi} e^{\left(\sigma _j - \sigma _i \right) t }

1073: \left(D_\epsilon\right)_{11}\left(t\right) \,dt + \left(T^{-1}\right)_{i2}

1074: \int _0^{2\pi} e^{\left(\sigma _j - \sigma _i \right) t

1075: }\left(D_\epsilon\right)_{21} \,dt\right\} .

1076: \end{equation}

1077: 

1078: \medskip

1079: 

1080: For the diagonal entries the exponential factors in the integrand reduce to unity and one finds

1081: \begin{equation}\label{diagonal_eq}

1082: \tilde{J}_{jj} = -4\pi \mu^2 \left(1-\mu ^2 \right) \sigma _j \left(T^{-1} \right) _{j2},

1083: \; j=1,2,3,4.\end{equation}

1084: 

1085: 

1086: 

1087: \medskip

1088: For the off-diagonal entries, the formulas may be found generally, but

1089: we need them only in the resonant cases where, for some pair of

1090: indices $(i,j)$, $\sigma _i - \sigma _j = ki$ for a non-zero integer

1091: $k$.\footnote{Recall that $\sigma _i \ne \sigma _j$ for any pair

1092: $i,j$ so $k=0$ is excluded.} It is clear from the formulas (\ref{D11}) (\ref{D21}) and

1093: (\ref{newJtilde}) that only resonances with $k=\pm 2$ contribute

1094: off-diagonal terms to leading order in $\epsilon$ since for any other

1095: choice of $k$ the integrals vanish: for $k \ne 2$ the matrix

1096: $\tilde{J}$ is diagonal.

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \section{Determinantal Derivatives}\label{detderivs}

1100: 

1101: Consider an $n

1102: \times n$ matrix $A\left(\epsilon \right)$ having the properties that

1103: it is a smooth function of $\epsilon$ and is diagonal at $\epsilon =

1104: 0$: $A\left(0\right) = \mbox{diag}\,\left(a_1,a_2, \ldots ,

1105: a_n\right)$. 

1106: 

1107: 

1108: We need the coefficients in the Taylor expansion of

1109: det$A\left(\epsilon\right) \equiv q\left(\epsilon\right)$:

1110: \begin{equation}\label{q_exp}

1111: q\left(\epsilon \right) = q_0 + q_1 \epsilon + q_2 \epsilon ^2 +

1112: \cdots

1113: \end{equation}

1114: where

1115: \begin{equation}\label{detA}

1116: q_0= \left|A\left(0\right)\right|, \; q_1 = \frac{d

1117: \left|A\left(\epsilon\right)\right|}{d\epsilon}|_{\epsilon =0}, \; q_2 =

1118: \frac{1}{2} \frac{d^2

1119: \left|A\left(\epsilon\right)\right|}{d \epsilon ^2}|_{\epsilon =0}, \;

1120: \cdots\end{equation}

1121: Straightforward applications of the formula for the derivative of a

1122: determinant show that

1123: \begin{eqnarray}\label{det_der_1}

1124: q_1 &=& A_{11}^\prime   a_2 a_3 \cdots a_n +

1125: A_{22}^\prime   a_1 a_3 \cdots a_n + \cdots +

1126: A_{nn}^\prime   a_1 a_2 \cdots a_{n-1},\\

1127: q_2 &=& \frac{1}{2}\left[ A_{11}^{\prime \prime}  a_2 a_3 \cdots a_n + 

1128:  A_{22}^{\prime \prime}  a_2 a_3 \cdots a_n + \cdots +

1129: A_{nn}^{\prime \prime}  a_1 a_2 \cdots a_{n-1}\right] \nonumber \\ &+& \left|

1130: \begin{array}{cc}A_{11}^\prime &A_{12}^\prime

1131: \\A_{21}^\prime & A_{22}^\prime

1132: \end{array}\right| a_3 a_4 \cdots a_n +\left|

1133: \begin{array}{cc}A_{11}^\prime &A_{13}^\prime

1134: \\A_{31}^\prime & A_{33}^\prime

1135: \end{array}\right|a_2 a_4 \cdots a_n  \\ &+&  \cdots +\left|

1136: \begin{array}{cc}A_{(n-1)(n-1)}^\prime &A_{(n-1)n}^\prime

1137: \\A_{n(n-1)}^\prime & A_{nn}^\prime

1138: \end{array}\right|a_1 a_2 \cdots a_{n-2} \label{det_der_2},

1139: \end{eqnarray}

1140: where the terms involving two-by-two determinants represent the sum over $k < l$ of the

1141: product of the $\left\{a_j\right\}$, $a_k$ and $a_l$ omitted, with the

1142: determinant 

1143: \[ \left| \begin{array}{cc}  A_{kk}^\prime   & A_{kl}^\prime

1144:  \\A_{lk}^\prime   & A_{ll}^\prime

1145:  \end{array}\right|\]

1146: and all derivatives are evaluated at the origin.

1147: 

1148: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1149: 

1150: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1991)]{bah} Balbus, S. \& Hawley, J. 1991, \apj,

1151: 376, 214

1152: 

1153: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1998)]{mri} Balbus, S. and Hawley, J. 1998,

1154: 	Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1

1155: 

1156: \bibitem[Bayly(1986)]{bay} Bayly, B.J. 1986, \prl, 57, 2160 

1157: 

1158: \bibitem[Chandrasekhar(1960)]{cha} Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Proc. Nat. Acad.

1159: Sci. 46, 253

1160: 

1161: \bibitem[Coddington and Levinson(1955)]{cl} Coddington, E. and Levinson, N. 1955,

1162: Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations, New York: Addison-Wesley

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[Craik(1988)]{addc88} Craik, A.D.D. 1988, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 417, 235

1165: 

1166: \bibitem[Kerswell(1994)]{rk94} Kerswell, R.R. 1994, J. Fluid Mech. 274, 219

1167: 

1168: \bibitem[Kerswell(2002)]{rk02} Kerswell, R.R. 2002, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech 34, 83

1169: 

1170: \bibitem[Goodman(1993)]{jg} Goodman, J. 1993 \apj, 406, 596

1171: 

1172: \bibitem[Hille(1972)]{hil} Hille, E.1962, Analytic Function Theory, volume II, New York: Ginn

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[Lubow, Pringle, and Kerswell(1993)]{lpk} Lubow, S.H., Pringle, J.E., 

1175: and Kerswell, R.R. 1993, \apj, 419, 758

1176: 

1177: \bibitem[Morris and Serabyn(1996)]{mor} Morris, M. \& Serbyn, E. 1996, \araa,

1178: 34, 645

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[Pierrehumbert(1986)]{rtp} Pierrehumbert, R.T. 1986, \prl, 57, 2157

1181: 

1182: \bibitem[Ryu and Goodman(1994)]{ryug} Ryu, D. and Goodman, J. 1994 \apj, 422, 269

1183: 

1184: \bibitem[Ryu, Goodman, and Vishniac(1996)]{ryugv} Ryu, D., Goodman, J. \&

1185: Vishniac, E.T. 1996, \apj, 461, 805

1186: 

1187: \bibitem[Velikhov(1959)]{vel} Velikhov, E.P. 1959, Sov. Phys. JETP, 36, 995

1188: 

1189: \bibitem[Waleffe(1990)]{wal} Waleffe, F. 1990, Phys. Fluids 2, 76

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[Yakubovich and Starzhinsii(1975)]{ys} Yakubovich, V.A. and Starzhinsky, V.M. 1975,

1192:  Linear Differential Equations with Periodic Coefficients, New York:Wiley

1193: 

1194: \end{thebibliography}

1195: 

1196: \end{document}

1197: