1: \documentclass[onecolumn]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{apjfonts}
3:
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\p} {\partial}
7: \def\bB{{\bf B}}
8: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}\ }
9: \def\etal{{\it et al.}\ }
10: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}\ }
11: \def\vs{{\it versus}\ }
12: \def\kk{{\bf k}}
13:
14: \slugcomment{\today}
15:
16: \shorttitle{Multi-scale Hall-MHD turbulence in the solar wind}
17: \shortauthors{Galtier and Buchlin}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{Multi-scale Hall-MHD turbulence in the solar wind}
22: \author{S\'ebastien Galtier}
23: \affil{Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale (IAS), B\^atiment 121,
24: F-91405 Orsay (France); Universit\'e Paris-Sud 11 and CNRS (UMR 8617)}
25: \email{sebastien.galtier@ias.fr}
26: \and
27: \author{\'Eric Buchlin}
28: \affil{Space and Atmospheric Physics Department, The Blackett Laboratory,
29: Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK}
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: Solar wind magnetic fluctuation spectra exhibit a significant power law steepening at frequencies
33: $f>1\,$Hz. The origin of this multi-scaling is investigated through dispersive Hall
34: magnetohydrodynamics. We perform three-dimensional numerical simulations in the framework of
35: a highly turbulent shell model and show that the large-scale magnetic fluctuations are characterized
36: by a $k^{-5/3}$--type spectrum which steepens at scales smaller than the ion inertial length $d_i$, to
37: $k^{-7/3}$ if the magnetic energy overtakes the kinetic energy, or to $k^{-11/3}$ in the opposite
38: case. These results are in agreement both with a heuristic description {\it \`a la} Kolmogorov, and
39: with the range of power law indices found in the solar wind.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{MHD --- solar wind --- turbulence}
43:
44: \medskip
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: The interplanetary medium provides a vast natural laboratory for studying many fundamental
48: questions about astrophysical plasmas. From the very beginning of {\it in situ} observations it was
49: realized that this medium was not quiet but rather highly turbulent and permeated by fluctuations of
50: plasma flow velocity and magnetic field on a wide range of scales, from $10^{-6}\,$Hz up to several
51: hundred hertz \citep{Coleman68,Belcher71,coroniti,Bill82,Denskat83,Leamon98b,Bale}. The detailed
52: analyses revealed that these fluctuations are mainly characterized (at one astronomical unit) by power
53: law energy spectra around $f^{-1.7}$ at low frequency ($f<1\,$Hz), which are generally interpreted
54: directly as wavenumber spectra by using the Taylor ``frozen-in flow'' hypothesis \citep{Goldstein99}.
55: This spectral index is somewhat closer to the Kolmogorov prediction for neutral fluids ($-5/3$) than the
56: Iroshnikov--Kraichnan prediction for magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) ($-3/2$) \citep{K41,iro,kr65}. Both
57: heuristic predictions are built, in particular, on the isotropic turbulence hypothesis which is questionable
58: for the inner interplanetary medium \citep{dobro,Galtier05,Oughton} since apparent signatures of
59: anisotropy are found through, for example, the detection of Alfv\'en waves \citep{Belcher71} or the
60: variance analysis of the magnetic field components and magnitude \citep{Barnes}. Note that from
61: single-point spacecraft measurements it is clearly not possible to specify the exact three-dimensional
62: (3D) nature of the interplanetary turbulent flow which still remains an open question.
63:
64: For timescales shorter than few seconds ($f>1\,$Hz), the statistical properties of the solar wind
65: change drastically with, in particular, a steepening of the magnetic fluctuation power law spectra
66: over more than two decades \citep{coroniti,Denskat83,Leamon98b,Bale,Smith06} with a spectral
67: index on average around $-3$.
68: The range of values found is significantly broader than the large scale counterpart and may depend
69: on the presence of magnetic clouds which lead to less steep power laws than open magnetic field
70: line regions \cite{Smith06}.
71: This new inertial range -- often called dissipation range -- is characterized
72: by a bias of the polarization suggesting that these fluctuations are likely to be right-hand polarized
73: \citep{Golstein94} with a proton cyclotron damping of Alfv\'en left circularly polarized fluctuations
74: \citep{Stawicki01}. This proposed scenario seems to be supported by Direct Numerical Simulations
75: (DNS) of compressible $2{1 \over 2}$D Hall-MHD turbulence \citep{Ghosh96} where a steepening
76: of the spectra is found -- although on a narrow range of wavenumbers -- and associated with
77: the appearance of right circularly polarized fluctuations. It is likely that what has been conventionally
78: thought of as a dissipation range is actually a second -- dispersive -- inertial range and that the steeper
79: power law is due to nonlinear wave processes rather than pure dissipation \citep{krishan04}.
80:
81: In this paper, our main goal is to investigate numerically the origin of the steepening of the magnetic
82: fluctuation power law spectra observed in the solar wind. For that purpose, we develop a numerical
83: cascade model based on dispersive Hall-MHD. We present the model in Section \ref{sec2} and the
84: numerical results in Section \ref{sec3}. A discussion about the duality between nonlinear cascade and
85: kinetic dissipation is given in Section \ref{sec4}. A conclusion follows in the last section.
86:
87:
88: \medskip
89: \section{Hall MHD equations and cascade model}
90: \label{sec2}
91:
92: Spacecraft measurements made in the interplanetary medium suggest a nonlinear dispersive
93: mechanism that will be modeled by the 3D incompressible Hall-MHD equations.
94: Such a description is often used, for example, to understand the main impact of the Hall term in
95: turbulent dynamo, in the solar wind and wave turbulence \citep{krishan04,Mininni05,Galtier06}.
96: It is particularly relevant for the pure/polar wind where density fluctuations are weak.
97: The incompressible inviscid Hall-MHD equations read
98: \be
99: \nabla \cdot {\bf V} = 0 \, ,\qquad
100: \nabla \cdot \bB = 0 \, ,
101: \label{hmhd1}
102: \ee
103: \be
104: \frac{\partial {\bf V}}{\partial t} + {\bf V} \cdot \nabla \, {\bf V} =
105: - {\bf \nabla} P_* + \bB \cdot \nabla \, \bB \, ,
106: \label{hmhd2}
107: \ee
108: \be
109: \frac{\partial \bB}{\partial t} + {\bf V} \cdot \nabla \, \bB =
110: \bB \cdot \nabla \, {\bf V} - d_i \, \nabla \times [ (\nabla \times \bB) \times \bB ] \, ,
111: \label{hmhd3}
112: \ee
113: where $\bB$ has been normalized to a velocity ($\bB \to \sqrt{\mu_0 n m_i} \, \bB$, with
114: $m_i$ the ion mass and $n$ the electron density), ${\bf V}$ is the plasma flow velocity,
115: $P_*$ is the total (magnetic plus kinetic) pressure and $d_i$ is the ion inertial length
116: ($d_i = c / \omega_{pi}$, where $c$ is the speed of light and $\omega_{pi}$ is the ion plasma
117: frequency). The Hall effect appears in the induction equation as an additional term proportional
118: to the ion inertial length $d_i$ which means that it is effective when the dynamical scale is small
119: enough \citep{Bhatt04}. In other words, for large scale phenomena this term is negligible and
120: we recover the standard MHD equations. In an opposite limit, \eg for very fast time scales
121: ($\ll \omega_{ci}^{-1}$, the ion cyclotron period), ions do not have time to follow electrons and
122: provide a static homogeneous background on which electrons move. Such a model where
123: the dynamics is entirely governed by electrons is called electron MHD \citep{Kingsep}. It can be
124: recovered from Hall-MHD by taking the limits of small velocity ${\bf V}$ and large $d_i$.
125:
126: DNS of turbulent flows at very large (magnetic) Reynolds numbers are well beyond today's computing
127: resources. Therefore, any reasonable simplification of corresponding equations is
128: particularly attractive. In the case of the solar wind, for which the Reynolds number is as large
129: as $10^9$ \cite{Tajima}, simplified models are currently the only way to investigate the multi-scale
130: behavior described above. Following this idea, we propose a description of solar wind turbulence
131: in terms of a shell model based on the 3D incompressible Hall-MHD equations. The basic idea of this
132: shell model is to represent each spectral range of a turbulent velocity and magnetic field with a few
133: variables and to describe their evolution in terms of relatively simple Ordinary Differential Equations
134: (ODE), ignoring details of its spatial distribution. The form of the ODE is of course inspired from the
135: original partial derivative equations and depends on some coefficients which are fixed by
136: imposing the conservation of the inviscid invariants. In spite of the simplifications made,
137: shell models remain highly non trivial and are able to reproduce several aspects of turbulent flows
138: like intermittency \citep{frisch,Bife,Buchlin06}.
139: Shell models are however less relevant in situations where strong non local interactions dominate and,
140: of course, when information in the physical space is necessary. Anisotropy is also problem for cascade
141: models such the one used in this paper, nevertheless it may be described by shell models if they are
142: derived, for example, from spectral closure like EDQNM \cite{Carbone90}.
143:
144: The present shell model is governed by the following coupled nonlinear ODE equations \citep{hori}
145: \be
146: \label{shell1}
147: \frac{\partial V_n}{\partial t} + \nu_2 k_n^4 V_n=
148: i k_n \left[ ( V_{n+1} V_{n+2} - B_{n+1} B_{n+2} ) - \frac{1}{4} ( V_{n-1} V_{n+1} -
149: B_{n-1} B_{n+1} ) - \frac{1}{8} ( V_{n-2} V_{n-1} - B_{n-2} B_{n-1} ) \right]^* \, ,
150: \ee
151: \be
152: \label{shell2}
153: \frac{\partial B_n}{\partial t} + \eta_2 k_n^4 B_n =
154: \frac{i k_n}{6} \left[ ( V_{n+1} B_{n+2} - B_{n+1} V_{n+2} ) + ( V_{n-1} B_{n+1} -
155: B_{n-1} V_{n+1} ) + ( V_{n-2} B_{n-1} - B_{n-2} V_{n-1} ) \right]^*
156: \ee
157: $$+ (-1)^n i d_i k_n^2 \left[ B_{n+1} B_{n+2} - \frac{1}{4} B_{n-1} B_{n+1} -
158: \frac{1}{8} B_{n-2} B_{n-1} \right]^* \, ,
159: $$
160: where $^*$ stands for the complex conjugate. The complex variables $V_n(t)$ and $B_n(t)$
161: represent the time evolution of the field fluctuations over a wavelength $k_n = k_0 \lambda^n$, with
162: $\lambda \equiv 2$ the intershell ratio and $n$ varying between $1$ and $N$. We note immediately
163: that the present model tends to the well-known shell model for MHD \citep{Frick,Giuliani} when the
164: large scale limit is taken, \ie in the limit $k_n d_i \to 0$. Note also the use of hyperviscosities
165: ($\nu_2$, $\eta_2$) to extend at maximum the nonlinear dispersive inertial range. The dissipation
166: is mainly used for numerical stability since the solar wind is mainly collisionless. We focus our
167: attention only on the wavenumber scales where dissipation is negligible therefore we do not
168: investigate the exact form of the dissipation.
169:
170: By construction, equations (\ref{shell1}--\ref{shell2}) conserve the three inviscid invariants of incompressible
171: Hall-MHD \citep[see \eg][]{Galtier06}
172: \be
173: E = \int E(k) \, dk = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n ( \vert V_n \vert^2 + \vert B_n \vert^2 ) = \sum_n E(k_n) \, ,
174: \label{energy}
175: \ee
176: \be
177: H_m = \int H_m(k) \, dk = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n (-1)^n \frac{\vert B_n \vert^2}{k_n} = \sum_n H_m(k_n) \, ,
178: \ee
179: \be
180: H_h = \int H_h(k) \, dk = \frac{1}{2} \sum_n \left[ (-1)^n d_i^2 k_n \vert V_n \vert^2 +
181: d_i (V_n^* B_n + V_n B_n^* ) \right] =\sum_n H_h(k_n) \, ,
182: \ee
183: which are respectively the total energy, the magnetic and hybrid helicities. Note, as usual, a
184: difference of unity in wavenumber between the shell (in $k_n$) and the true (in $k$) power
185: spectra \citep{Frick,Giuliani}.
186:
187: \clearpage
188:
189: From equations (\ref{shell1},\ref{shell2},\ref{energy}) it is possible
190: to extract information about the energy flux $P_n$ towards small scales
191: \cite{Buchlin06}.
192: We have (for an infinite range of shell indices)
193: \begin{eqnarray}
194: P_n &=& - \frac12 \sum_{m \ge n} \Bigg\{ i \frac{k_m}{8}
195: \Big[8(V_mV_{m+1}V_{m+2} - V_mB_{m+1}B_{m+2} )
196: - 2(V_{m-1}V_{m}V_{m+1} - B_{m-1}V_{m}B_{m+1} )
197: - (V_{m-2}V_{m-1}V_{m} - B_{m-2}B_{m-1}V_{m} )\Big] \nonumber \\
198: %
199: &&\quad+ \frac{i k_m}{6} \Big[ (B_{m}V_{m+1}B_{m+2} - B_{m}B_{m+1}V_{m+2})
200: + (V_{m-1}B_{m}B_{m+1} - B_{m-1}B_{m}V_{m+1})
201: + (V_{m-2}B_{m-1}B_{m} - B_{m-2}V_{m-1}B_{m}) \Big] \nonumber \\
202: %
203: &&\quad + (-1)^m i d_i \frac{k_m^2}{8}
204: \Big[8B_mB_{m+1}B_{m+2} - 2B_{m-1}B_{m}B_{m+1} - B_{m-2}B_{m-1}B_{m}
205: \Big] \Bigg\} + c.c. \, .
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: Simple manipulations (with $\lambda \equiv 2$) lead to
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: P_n &=&
210: - \frac12 \Bigg\{ i \frac{k_n}{8}
211: \Big[- 2(V_{n-1}V_{n}V_{n+1} - B_{n-1}V_{n}B_{n+1} )
212: - (V_{n-2}V_{n-1}V_{n} - B_{n-2}B_{n-1}V_{n} )
213: - 2(V_{n-1}V_{n}V_{n+1} - B_{n-1}B_{n}V_{n+1} )\Big] \nonumber \\
214: %
215: &&+ \frac{i k_n}{6} \Big[ (V_{n-1}B_{n}B_{n+1} - B_{n-1}B_{n}V_{n+1})
216: + (V_{n-2}B_{n-1}B_{n} - B_{n-2}V_{n-1}B_{n}) + 2 (V_{n-1}B_{n}B_{n+1} -
217: B_{n-1}V_{n}B_{n+1}) \Big] \nonumber \\
218: %
219: &&\quad + (-1)^n i d_i \frac{k_n^2}{8}
220: \Big[ -2 B_{n-1}B_{n}B_{n+1} - B_{n-2}B_{n-1}B_{n} +
221: 4 B_{n-1}B_{n}B_{n+1}\Big] \Bigg\} \nonumber \\
222: %
223: %
224: &&- \frac12 \sum_{m \ge n}
225: \Bigg\{ i \frac{k_m}{2} \Big[2(V_mV_{m+1}V_{m+2} - V_mB_{m+1}B_{m+2} )
226: - (V_{m}V_{m+1}V_{m+2} - B_{m}V_{m+1}B_{m+2} ) - (V_{m}V_{m+1}V_{m+2} - B_{m}B_{m+1}V_{m+2} )\Big] \nonumber \\
227: %
228: &&\quad+ \frac{i k_m}{6} \Big[ (B_{m}V_{m+1}B_{m+2} - B_{m}B_{m+1}V_{m+2})
229: + 2 (V_{m}B_{m+1}B_{m+2} - B_{m}B_{m+1}V_{m+2}) + 4 (V_{m}B_{m+1}B_{m+2} - B_{m}V_{m+1}B_{m+2}) \Big] \nonumber \\
230: %
231: &&\quad + (-1)^m i d_i k_m^2
232: \Big[B_mB_{m+1}B_{m+2} + B_{m}B_{m+1}B_{m+2} - 2 B_{m}B_{m+1}B_{m+2}\Big] \Bigg\}
233: + c.c. \, .
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: All terms in the sum over $m$ vanish and we finally obtain after rearranging the remaining terms
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: P_n &=&
238: \label{flux}
239: - i \frac{k_n}{48} \Big[ 4 V_{n-1}B_{n} ( 3B_{n+1} - B_{n-2} )
240: - 3 V_{n-1}V_{n} ( V_{n-2} + 4 V_{n+1} )
241: + 2 B_{n-1} B_{n} ( V_{n+1} + 2 V_{n-2} )
242: - B_{n-1} V_{n} ( 2 B_{n+1} - 3 B_{n-2} ) \Big] \nonumber \\
243: %
244: &&- i d_i \frac{k_n^2}{16} (-1)^n B_{n-1}B_{n} ( 2 B_{n+1} - B_{n-2} )
245: + c.c. \, .
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: This previous expression allows us to derive one particular type of solutions of constant flux
248: towards small scales by assuming that the velocity and magnetic fields are power law
249: dependent in $k_n$, namely
250: \be
251: V_n \sim k_n^{\alpha} \sim \lambda^{n \alpha} \, ,
252: \qquad
253: B_n \sim k_n^{\beta} \sim \lambda^{n \beta} \, .
254: \ee
255: We insert the previous relations into equation (\ref{flux}) and cancel the dependence in $n$
256: to obtain a constant flux solution. It gives
257: \be
258: 3 \alpha +1 =0 \, ,
259: \label{relation1}
260: \ee
261: \be
262: 1 + \alpha + 2 \beta =0 \, ,
263: \qquad
264: 3 \beta + 2 =0 \, .
265: \ee
266: The last relation which comes from the Hall term leads to a $k^{-7/3}$ magnetic energy spectrum.
267: It is precisely the expected scaling exponent in electron MHD turbulence when the magnetic field dominates
268: at small scales \citep{Biskamp96}. The two other relations, applicable in particular at large scales in the pure
269: MHD turbulence regime, lead to a unique $k^{-5/3}$ scaling for magnetic and
270: kinetic energy spectra. Note that equation (\ref{relation1}) comes from the pure velocity interacting
271: term of equation (\ref{shell1}): in other words it is the Navier-Stokes contribution to Hall-MHD which,
272: as expected, gives the Kolmogorov scaling exponent.
273:
274: \section{Numerical results}
275: \label{sec3}
276:
277: Generally, shell models do not deal with spectral anisotropy,
278: therefore we will focus our analysis on the isotropic spectral evolution when the Hall term is effective.
279: To our knowledge, such an analysis has never been made with a shell model. As explained above
280: some DNS exist but the resolution is currently limited at maximum to a spatial resolution of $256^3$
281: grid points \citep{Ghosh96,Mininni05} which is already interesting to analyze first dispersive effects
282: but definitely not enough to extract precisely any multi-scale spectral power law behaviors.
283:
284: \begin{figure}[t]
285: \centering
286: \includegraphics[width=.55\linewidth]{f1}
287: \caption{Compensated magnetic (triangles) and kinetic (stars) energy spectra for, respectively,
288: the electron MHD and Navier-Stokes limits. The corresponding well-known scalings in $k^{-7/3}$
289: and in $k^{-5/3}$ are given in dashed lines.}
290: \label{Fig1}
291: \end{figure}
292:
293: \subsection{Electron MHD and Navier-Stokes limits}
294:
295: Numerical simulations of equations (\ref{shell1}--\ref{shell2}) are made with $N=25$, $k_0=10^{-2}$ and
296: without external forcing. In all cases considered in this paper, the initial spectra are localized at large
297: scales with a maximum around $k=0.04$ and with an sharp decrease at larger wavenumbers. First, we
298: consider the purely magnetic case also called electron MHD ($V_n=0$ at any time, $d_i = 0.3$ and
299: $\eta_2=10^{-13}$). The compensated magnetic energy spectrum is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig1}.
300: (A time average is taken over 30 times in all figures.)
301: As expected, the magnetic energy spectrum (triangles) scales in $k^{-7/3}$ which is the Kolmogorov
302: scaling counterpart for electron MHD \citep{Biskamp96}. This result differs clearly from the
303: purely hydrodynamic case ($B_n=0$ at any time; $\nu_2=10^{-13}$), the stars in the same figure,
304: for which we have a $k^{-5/3}$ power law. Note that MHD simulations with $d_i=0$ (not shown here)
305: reproduce correctly the $k^{-5/3}$ energy spectra \citep{Frick,Giuliani}. Note also that in both cases
306: (and for all other figures) the true spectra (in $k$) are displayed. From these first results, we may
307: conclude naively that in Hall-MHD the magnetic energy spectrum should lie between these two scalings.
308: We will see that, in general, it is not true.
309:
310: \begin{figure}[b]
311: \centering
312: \includegraphics[width=.55\linewidth]{f2}
313: \caption{Compensated magnetic (triangles) and kinetic (stars; for clarity, they are shifted to lower values)
314: energy spectra in Hall-MHD. The vertical solid lines indicate the critical value $k d_i = 1$.}
315: \label{Fig2}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: \subsection{Hall-MHD with $d_i=0.3$}
319: Then, we perform a full Hall-MHD numerical simulation in which the kinetic and magnetic fluctuations
320: are initially of order one ($\nu_2=\eta_2=10^{-13}$ and $d_i = 0.3$). In Fig. \ref{Fig2} we show the
321: magnetic and kinetic compensated energy spectra. Two scalings are clearly present
322: for the magnetic energy spectrum: large scales are characterized by a Kolmogorov type spectrum
323: in $k^{-5/3}$ and, surprisingly, small scales follow a $k^{-11/3}$ power law over more than two decades.
324: This second inertial range appears only when $k d_i > 20$: in other words, that means the Hall term
325: becomes dominant not immediately beyond the critical value $k d_i = 1$ but at scales one order of
326: magnitude smaller. Note this additional difficulty for DNS to reproduce such a behavior since it requires
327: to have a very extended inertial range. The kinetic part seems not to be affected by the Hall term and
328: displays clearly a $k^{-5/3}$ scaling all over the wavenumbers.
329: As we see
330: in Fig. \ref{Fig3}, this behavior is linked to the spectral ratio between the kinetic and magnetic energies.
331:
332: The magnetic energy is slightly greater than the kinetic one at large scales, as usually found in MHD
333: DNS \citep{Politano} and in the solar wind \citep{Bavassano}. This feature extends beyond the critical
334: value $k d_i = 1$. Then, the kinetic energy dominates strongly the magnetic one until the dissipative
335: range is reached ($k>10^4$). This result reveals that the small scale nonlinear dynamics is likely to
336: be dominated by the velocity and not by the magnetic field as it is the case in the electron MHD regime.
337: Finally, we have also computed the residual energy spectrum (not shown), \ie the difference in
338: absolute value between the magnetic and kinetic energy spectra. This quantity follows a $k^{-5/3}$
339: power law which is clearly different from the $k^{-7/3}$ scaling found recently in pure 3D MHD DNS
340: \cite{Muller}. The Hall term could be at the origin of this difference: for example, in the context of
341: wave turbulence we know \cite{Galtier06} that the equipartition found in pure MHD is not anymore
342: observed when the Hall term is present, whatever its magnitude is, leading to a non trivial interaction
343: between the magnetic and kinetic energy spectra.
344:
345: To explain the non-trivial behavior found above, we have to come back to the original Hall-MHD equations
346: (\ref{hmhd1}--\ref{hmhd3}). At large scales, the usual Kolmogorov phenomenology may be used to
347: describe turbulence. We will not enter in the debate about the Kolmogorov \vs Iroshnikov-Kraichnan
348: description since our primary aim is to look at the multi-scale behavior of the Hall-MHD flow and not
349: the very precise value of the power law exponent at large scales. The kinetic and magnetic energies
350: being of the same order of magnitude, we find from equations (\ref{hmhd2}--\ref{hmhd3}) a single
351: transfer time $\tau_{tr}=\ell / V_{\ell}$ and therefore a $k^{-5/3}$ large scale energy spectrum
352: \citep{frisch}. We note immediately that at small scales this time will not change for equation
353: (\ref{hmhd2}) since then the velocity field dominates. However, for equation (\ref{hmhd3}) the Hall
354: term has to be taken into account when scales are smaller than the ion inertial length; it gives
355: \be
356: \tau_{tr}=\ell^2 / (d_i B_{\ell}) \, .
357: \ee
358: Equating both transfer times we obtain the relation
359: \be
360: d_i B_{\ell} = \ell V_{\ell} \, .
361: \ee
362: Because at small scales the velocity field overtakes the magnetic field, the latter is driven nonlinearly
363: by the former which eventually leads to the relation
364: \be
365: E^B(k) = (d_i k)^{-2} E^V(k) \sim k^{-11/3} \, .
366: \ee
367: As we have seen above this result cannot be predicted by a simple analysis on constant flux solutions.
368:
369:
370: \begin{figure}[t]
371: \centering
372: \includegraphics[width=.55\linewidth]{f3}
373: \caption{Spectral ratio between the kinetic and magnetic energies (same simulation as in Fig. \ref{Fig2}).
374: The equipartition state is given in dashed line.}
375: \label{Fig3}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378:
379: \begin{figure}[b]
380: \centering
381: \includegraphics[width=.55\linewidth]{f4}
382: \caption{Magnetic energy spectrum (triangles) and compensated spectral ratio (squares; for clarity,
383: they are shifted to higher values) for $d_i = 30$.}
384: \label{Fig4}
385: \end{figure}
386:
387: \subsection{Hall-MHD with $d_i=30$}
388:
389: The heuristic description given above may be modified for other physical conditions. In a last set of
390: simulations, we have taken $d_i=30$ such that the Hall term becomes effective at the very beginning
391: of the inertial range ($\nu_2=\eta_2=10^{-12}$). In this case, we see in Fig. \ref{Fig4} that the
392: magnetic energy exhibits the electron MHD law in $k^{-7/3}$ whereas a spectral relation $k^2 E^U = E^B$
393: is clearly established. This result means that a steeper spectrum in $k^{-13/3}$ is found for the kinetic
394: energy and that the magnetic energy overtakes the kinetic one at all scales. These results may be
395: explained by modifying the previous phenomenology. Since now the magnetic field overtakes the
396: velocity, the relevant transfer time in equation (\ref{hmhd3}) is given by the Hall term at all scales
397: which leads to $\tau_{tr}=\ell^2 / (d_i B_{\ell})$. For equation (\ref{hmhd2}), we retain the magnetic
398: nonlinear term and obtain $\tau_{tr}=\ell V_{\ell} / (B_{\ell}^2)$. Equating both times we find the relation
399: \be
400: d_i V_{\ell} \sim \ell B_{\ell}
401: \ee
402: and then
403: \be
404: E^V(k) = (d_i k)^{-2} E^B(k) \sim k^{-13/3} \, .
405: \ee
406: This situation may be relevant for the solar wind if a strong small scale depletion of kinetic energy is produced
407: for example by proton cyclotron damping \citep{Hollweg}.
408: In the context of Hall MHD turbulence, we see that a significant range of spectral indices are allowed for
409: the magnetic fluctuation spectrum. This range of values, between $-7/3$ and $-11/3$, has to be compared
410: with the most recent works \cite{Smith06} where the value $-2.61 \pm 0.96$ is reported for open magnetic
411: field line regions.
412:
413:
414:
415: \section{Nonlinear cascade {\it versus} kinetic dissipation}
416: \label{sec4}
417:
418: The mechanism by which heat is deposited in the low and extended solar corona is a recurring theme
419: of research in solar physics. In the solar wind case, heating perpendicular to the magnetic field is clearly
420: observed for protons. This is often taken to be a signature of cyclotron damping of the turbulent
421: fluctuations \citep{Hollweg,Cranmer}. The fluid and kinetic descriptions are often seen as two competing
422: mechanisms and it is only during the last years that attempts have been made to reconcile both
423: descriptions. One of the main problem is to quantify the balance between a nonlinear cascade, from
424: large scales to small (non-MHD) scales, and cyclotron damping, which may occur at small scales. A
425: ratio of order one has been proposed to explain why complete
426: cyclotron absorption, and the corresponding pure magnetic helicity signature, is usually not observed
427: \citep{Leamon98a}. In view of the weak density fluctuations and the low average turbulent Mach
428: number \citep{Bill90}, this type of analysis is generally made with a leading order description based
429: on incompressible turbulence like in the present paper.
430: The role of anisotropy has also been recently discussed \citep{Leamon00}: it is proposed that
431: a significant fraction of dissipation likely proceeds through a perpendicular cascade and small-scale
432: reconnection. The scale at which dissipation occurs is associated to the ion inertial length $d_i$ which is
433: of the order of $100$km at $1$ AU.
434: In the mean time, indirect mechanism for damping quasi 2D fluctuations have been proposed to explain
435: the steepening of the magnetic fluctuation spectra \citep{Marko}. Indeed, whereas quasi 2D fluctuations
436: dominate strongly the slab component in the MHD inertial range, it is more balanced in the
437: dispersive range which suggests that most of the energy dissipated comes from the quasi 2D fluctuations.
438: In that context, an equation for the energy transfer in the solar wind is proposed in an {\it ad-hoc} way where
439: the diffusion and dissipative coefficients are chosen initially to produce the expected scaling laws. This
440: philosophy is clearly different to the one followed here with the cascade model.
441:
442: Recently, a rigorous analysis of nonlinear transfers in the inner solar wind has been proposed in the context
443: of Hall-MHD wave turbulence \citep{Galtier06}. This approach reconciles somehow the picture, in one hand,
444: of a solar wind made of propagating Alfv\'en waves and, in other hand, a fully turbulent interplanetary medium.
445: The main rigorous result is a steepening of the anisotropic magnetic fluctuation spectrum at scales smaller
446: than $d_i$ with anisotropies of different strength, large scale anisotropy being stronger than at small
447: scales. This result is particularly interesting for cyclotron damping since this mechanism is thought to be
448: less efficient when spectral anisotropy is stronger. Of course, Hall-MHD does not deal with kinetic effects
449: and it is only a way to quantify nonlinear transfers. In the present work, we have seen that the steepening
450: of the magnetic fluctuation power law spectra may be explained by a pure nonlinear mechanism. Different
451: values are found for the power
452: law exponent which depends on the ratio between the kinetic and magnetic energies. In the previous works
453: quoted above, a balance is often assumed between the kinetic and magnetic energies. This assumption is
454: not necessarily satisfied and the range of values of the power exponent recently investigated \citep{Smith06}
455: may be seen as a signature of different ratio between the kinetic and magnetic energies. Note that in the
456: context of Hall MHD turbulence, it is straightforward to show with a heuristic model that the cascade rate
457: should increase at small scales because of the Hall term. This prediction compares favorably with solar wind
458: analysis showing that a steeper spectrum results from greater cascade rates \citep{Smith06}.
459:
460:
461: \section{Discussion and conclusion}
462: \label{sec5}
463:
464: Hall-MHD may be seen as a natural nonlinear model for explaining the strong steepening of the magnetic fluctuation spectra observed in the solar wind and the precise value of this power law exponent appears
465: to be a way to probe the velocity scaling law. In particular, our analysis reveals that (i) the presence of a
466: wide MHD inertial range has a deep impact on smaller dispersive scales in fixing the corresponding
467: spectral scaling laws, (ii) the electron MHD approximation may not be relevant for describing small scale
468: solar wind turbulence, and (iii) the non trivial multi-scaling found may be seen as a consequence of the
469: propagation of some large scale information to smaller scales.
470:
471: Of course, the scalings found here may be altered by effects not included in the model. For example
472: density variations -- although weak in the pure/polar wind -- could modify slightly these results
473: like in MHD \citep{Zank1,Zank2},
474: as well as intermittency whose effects is mainly measured in higher order moments. Nonlocal effects
475: \citep{Mininni06} and anisotropy \citep{Galtier06} are also important ingredients, however in the
476: latter case a recent analysis made with Cluster, a multi-spacecraft mission dedicated to the Earth's
477: magnetosphere, shows only a slight difference in the power law index between the frequency magnetic
478: spectrum and the 3D spatial one although a strong anisotropy is detected in this medium \citep{Sahraoui}.
479: The predominance of outward propagating Alfv\'en {\it and} whistler waves has also certainly an influence
480: on the spectral laws but it has never been studied in a multi-scale model and it is currently under investigation.
481: It is likely that such asymmetric wave flux (imbalanced turbulence) leads for the scaling exponents to a
482: range of values centered around the exponents found here as it is observed in MHD turbulence
483: \citep[see \eg][]{Politano, Galtier00}. In that sense the present work lays the foundation to a more
484: general multi-scale model.
485:
486:
487: \acknowledgments
488:
489: Grant from PPARC and partial financial support from the PNST (Programme National Soleil--Terre)
490: program of INSU (CNRS) are gratefully acknowledged.
491:
492:
493: \begin{thebibliography}{}
494: \bibitem[Bale et al. 2005]{Bale}
495: Bale, S.D., Kellogg, P.J., Mozer, F.S., Horbury, T.S. and Reme, H. 2005, \prl, 94, 215002
496: \bibitem[Barnes 1981]{Barnes}
497: Barnes, A. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 7498
498: \bibitem[Bavassano et al. 2000]{Bavassano}
499: Bavassano, B., Pietropaolo, E. and Bruno, R. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 15959
500: \bibitem[Belcher and Davis 1971]{Belcher71}
501: Belcher, J.W. and Davis, L. 1971, J. Geophys. Res., 76, 3534
502: \bibitem[Bhattacharjee 2004]{Bhatt04}
503: Bhattacharjee, A. 2004, ARA\&A., 42, 365
504: \bibitem[Biferale 2003]{Bife}
505: Biferale, L. 2003, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 35, 441
506: \bibitem[Biskamp et al. 1996]{Biskamp96}
507: Biskamp, D., Schwarz, E. and Drake, J.F. 1996, \prl, 76, 1264
508: \bibitem[Buchlin and Velli 2006]{Buchlin06}
509: Buchlin, E. and Velli, M. 2006, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0606610)
510: \bibitem[Carbone and Veltri 1990]{Carbone90}
511: Carbone, V. and Veltri, P. 1990, Geophys. Astro. Fluid Dyn. 52, 153
512: \bibitem[Coleman 1968]{Coleman68}
513: Coleman, P.J. 1968, \apj, 153, 371
514: \bibitem[Coroniti et al. 1982]{coroniti}
515: Coroniti, F.V., Kennel, C.F. and Scarf, F.L. 1982, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 6029
516: \bibitem[Cranmer and Van Ballegooijen 2003]{Cranmer}
517: Cranmer, S.R. and Van Ballegooijen, A.A. 2003, \apj, 594, 573
518: \bibitem[Denskat et al. 1983]{Denskat83}
519: Denskat, K.U., Beinroth, H.J. and Neubauer, F.M. 1983, J. Geophys., 54, 60
520: \bibitem[Dobrowolny et al. 1980]{dobro}
521: Dobrowolny, M., Mangeney, A. and Veltri, P. 1980, \prl, 45, 144
522: \bibitem[Frick and Sokoloff 1998]{Frick}
523: Frick, P. and Sokoloff, D. 1998, Phys. Rev. E, 57, 4155
524: \bibitem[Frisch 1995]{frisch}
525: Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence (Cambridge\,: Cambridge Univ. Press)
526: \bibitem[Galtier et al. 2000]{Galtier00}
527: Galtier, S., Nazarenko S.V., Newell A.C. and Pouquet A. 2000, J. Plasma Phys., 63, 447
528: \bibitem[Galtier 2006]{Galtier06}
529: Galtier, S. 2006, J. Plasma Phys., 72, 721
530: \bibitem[Galtier et al. 2005]{Galtier05}
531: Galtier, S., Pouquet, A. and Mangeney, A. 2005, Phys. Plasmas, 12, 092310
532: \bibitem[Ghosh et al. 1996]{Ghosh96}
533: Ghosh, S., Siregar, E., Roberts, D.A. and Goldstein, M.L. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 2493
534: \bibitem[Giuliani and Carbone 1998]{Giuliani}
535: Giuliani, P. and Carbone, V. 1998, Europhys. Lett., 43, 527
536: \bibitem[Goldstein and Roberts 1999]{Goldstein99}
537: Goldstein, M.L. and Roberts, D.A. 1999, Phys. Plasmas, 6, 4154
538: \bibitem[Goldstein et al. 1994]{Golstein94}
539: Goldstein, M.L., Roberts, D.A. and Fitch, C.A. 1994, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 11519
540: \bibitem[Hollweg and Isenberg 2002]{Hollweg}
541: Hollweg, J.V. and Isenberg, P.A. 2002, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 1147
542: \bibitem[Hori et al. 2005]{hori}
543: Hori, D., Furukawa, M., Ohsaki, S. and Yoshida, Z. 2005, J. Plasma Fusion Res., 81, 141
544: \bibitem[Iroshnikov 1963]{iro}
545: Iroshnikov, P. 1963, Sov. Astron., 7, 566
546: \bibitem[Kingsep et al. 1990]{Kingsep}
547: Kingsep, A.S., Chukbar, K.V. and Yankov, V.V. 1990, in Reviews of Plasma Physics
548: (Consultant Bureau, New York, Vol., 16)
549: \bibitem[Kolmogorov 1941]{K41}
550: Kolmogorov, A.N. 1941, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSS, 30, 301
551: \bibitem[Kraichnan 1965]{kr65}
552: Kraichnan, R.H. 1965, Phys. Fluids, 8, 1385
553: \bibitem[Krishan and Mahajan 2004]{krishan04}
554: Krishan, V. and Mahajan, S.M. 2004, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A111051
555: \bibitem[Leamon et al. 1998a]{Leamon98a}
556: Leamon, R.J., Matthaeus, W.H., Smith, C.W. and Wong, H.K. 1998a, \apj, 507, L181
557: \bibitem[Leamon et al. 1998b]{Leamon98b}
558: Leamon, R.J., Smith, C.W., Ness, N.F. and Matthaeus, W.H. 1998b, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 4775
559: \bibitem[Leamon et al. 2000]{Leamon00}
560: Leamon, R.J., Matthaeus, W.H., Smith, C.W., Zank, G.P., Mullan, D.J. and Oughton, S. 2000,
561: \apj, 537, 1054
562: \bibitem[Markovskii et al. 2006]{Marko}
563: Markovskii, S.A., Vasquez, B.J., Smith, C.W. and Hollweg, J.V. 2006, \apj, 639, 1177
564: \bibitem[Matthaeus and Goldstein 1982]{Bill82}
565: Matthaeus, W.H. and Goldstein, M.L. 1982, J. Geoph. Res., 87A, 6011
566: \bibitem[Matthaeus et al. 1990]{Bill90}
567: Matthaeus, W.H., Goldstein, M.L. and Roberts 1990, J. Geoph. Res., 95, 20673
568: \bibitem[Mininni et al. 2006]{Mininni06}
569: Mininni, P.D., Alexakis, A. and Pouquet, A. 2006, J. Plasma Phys., in press (physics/0510053)
570: \bibitem[Mininni et al. 2005]{Mininni05}
571: Mininni, P.D., G\'omez, D.O. and Mahajan, S.M. 2005, \apj, 619, 1019
572: \bibitem[M\"uller and Grappin 2005]{Muller}
573: M\"uller, W.-C. and Grappin, R. 2006, \prl, 95, 114502
574: \bibitem[Oughton and Matthaeus 2005]{Oughton}
575: Oughton, S. and Matthaeus, W.H. 2005, Nonlin. Proc. Geophys., 12, 299
576: \bibitem[Politano et al. 1989]{Politano}
577: Politano, H., Pouquet, A. and Sulem, P.-L. 1989, Phys. Fluids B, 1, 2330
578: \bibitem[Sahraoui et al. 2006]{Sahraoui}
579: Sahraoui, F., Belmont, G., Rezeau, L., Cornilleau-Wehrlin, N., Pin\c con, J.L. and Balogh, A. 2006,
580: \prl, 96, 075002
581: \bibitem[Smith et al. 2006]{Smith06}
582: Smith, C.W., Hamilton, K., Vasquez, B.J. and Leamon, R.J. 2006, \apj, 645, L85
583: \bibitem[Stawicki et al. 2001]{Stawicki01}
584: Stawicki, O., Gary, P.S. and Li, H. 2001, J. Geoph. Res., 106, 8273
585: \bibitem[Tajima and Shibata 2002]{Tajima}
586: Tajima, T. and Shibata, K. 2002, Plasma Astrophysics (Boulder: Westview Press)
587: \bibitem[Zank and Matthaeus 1992a]{Zank1}
588: Zank, G.P. and Matthaeus, W.H. 1992a, J. Plasma Phys. 48, 85
589: \bibitem[Zank and Matthaeus 1992b]{Zank2}
590: Zank, G.P. and Matthaeus, W.H. 1992b, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 17189
591: \end{thebibliography}
592:
593:
594:
595:
596: \end{document}
597: