1: \documentclass[pre,aps,superscriptaddress,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{bm}

4: %\input REVTeXDraft1.tex

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \def\B.#1{{\bm #1}}

9: \def\C.#1{{\cal #1}}

10: \title{Active and Passive Fields in Turbulent Transport: the Role of

11: Statistically Preserved

12: Structures}

13: \author{Emily S.C. Ching}

14: \affiliation{Department of Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,

15: Sha Tin, Hong Kong}

16: \author{Yoram Cohen}

17: \author{Thomas Gilbert}

18: \author{Itamar Procaccia}

19: \affiliation{Dept. of Chemical Physics, The Weizmann Institute

20: of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel}

21: \date{\today}

22: \begin{abstract}

23: We have recently proposed that the statistics of {\em active}

24: fields (which affect the velocity field itself) in

25: well-developed turbulence

26: are also dominated by the Statistically Preserved Structures

27: of auxiliary {\em passive} fields which are

28: advected by the same velocity field.

29: The Statistically Preserved Structures are eigenmodes

30: of eigenvalue 1 of an appropriate propagator of the

31: decaying (unforced) passive field, or equivalently,

32: the zero modes of a related operator.

33: In this paper we investigate

34: further this surprising finding via two examples, one akin to turbulent

35: convection in which the temperature is the active scalar, and the other

36: akin to magneto-hydrodynamics in which the magnetic field is the active

37: vector. In the first example, all the even correlation functions

38: of the active and passive fields exhibit identical

39: scaling behavior.  The second example appears at first sight to be a

40: counter-example: the statistical objects of the active and passive fields

41: have entirely different scaling exponents. We demonstrate

42: nevertheless that the Statistically Preserved Structures

43: of the passive vector dominate again the statistics of the active

44: field, except that due to a dynamical conservation law the amplitude

45: of the leading zero mode cancels exactly. The active vector is then

46: dominated by the sub-leading zero mode of the passive vector. Our work

47: thus suggests that the statistical properties of active fields in

48: turbulence can be understood with the same generality as those of passive

49: fields.

50: \end{abstract}

51: \pacs{47.27.-i}

52: \maketitle

53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

54: \section{Introduction}

55: \label{intro}

56: 

57: The aim of this paper is to address the statistical physics of so called

58: ``active" fields in developed fluid turbulence. These are fields that

59: differ

60: from the

61: fundamental fluid velocity field $\B.u(\B.r,t)$, but that interact with

62: the

63: velocity field

64: in an essential way, for example effecting a significant change in the

65: scaling exponents

66: of the velocity correlation functions from the classical Kolmogorov

67: exponents.

68: For the sake of concreteness we will focus on two generic examples with

69: very different interactions between the active and the velocity fields.

70: 

71: The first is thermal turbulent convection, in which the temperature field

72: $T(\B.r,t)$ is driving the velocity field through buoyancy effects. In the

73: Boussinesq

74: approximation the temperature equation reads like a standard forced

75: scalar advection problem,

76: \begin{equation}

77: \frac{\partial T(\B.r,t)}{\partial t}\!+\!\B.u(\B.r,t)\cdot

78: \B.\nabla T(\B.r,t)\!=\!\kappa \nabla^2 T(\B.r,t)\!+\!f(\B.r,t)  .

79: \label{active}

80: \end{equation}

81: Here $\kappa$ is the thermal diffusivity

82: and $f(\B.r,t)$ is a white random force of zero mean

83: with compact support in $\B.k$-space, acting on the largest

84: scales of the order of the outer scale $L$ only.

85: The velocity field is affected by the temperature. For

86: an incompressible fluid of unit density \cite{71MY} (dropping

87: the dependence on $(\B.r,t)$ for brevity),

88: \begin{equation}

89: \frac{\partial \B.u}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

90: \B.\nabla \B.u=-\B.\nabla p+\nu \nabla^2 \B.u

91: +\alpha g T\hat z \ .

92: \label{Boussinesq}

93: \end{equation}

94: Here $p$, $\nu$, $\alpha$, $g$ and $\hat z$ are the pressure,

95: kinematic viscosity, volume

96: expansion coefficient, acceleration due to gravity and a unit

97: vector in the upward direction respectively. The

98: appearance of $T$ in the equation for $\B.u$ is crucial,

99: and changes the scaling exponents of $\B.u$. When the conditions

100: are right it may even change the scaling exponents from Kolmogorov 

101: to Bolgiano (up to anomalies) \cite{71MY}.

102: 

103: The second example is that of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD), in which the

104: magnetic field $\B.b(\B.r,t)$ is driving the velocity field $\B.u(\B.r,t)$

105: according to \cite{Zeldovich}

106: \begin{eqnarray}

107: \frac{\partial \B.u}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

108: \B.\nabla \B.u&=&-\B.\nabla p +\B.b\cdot\B.\nabla \B.b +\nu \nabla^2 \B.u

109:  \ , \nonumber\\ 

110: \frac{\partial \B.b}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

111: \B.\nabla \B.b&=& \B.b\cdot\B.\nabla \B.u +\kappa \nabla^2 \B.b+\B.f \ .

112: \label{MHD}

113: \end{eqnarray}

114: These equations of motion conserve (in the inviscid, unforced limit)

115: three quadratic invariants, i.~e. the energy, magnetic helicity and cross

116: helicity \cite{93Bis}

117: 

118: Our main interest is in the properties of the statistical

119: objects characterizing the active fields, including their anomalous

120: scaling. Here ``anomalous scaling'' means that

121: multi-point correlation functions are homogeneous functions of their

122: arguments, with exponents that cannot be guessed from dimensional

123: analysis. Thus for example the field $\phi(\B.r,t)$ (with $\phi$ being $T$

124: or

125: $\B.b$ respectively) has simultaneous multi-point correlation functions

126: \begin{equation}

127: F^{(m)}(\B.r_1,\B.r_2,\!\cdots\!, \B.r_m)\equiv

128: \langle \phi(\B.r_1,t)\phi(\B.r_2,t)\!\cdots\!

129: \phi(\B.r_m,t)\rangle_f \ , \label{corr}

130: \end{equation}

131: where pointed brackets with subscript $f$ refer to

132: averaging over the statistics

133: of the advecting velocity field {\em and} of the forcing. The forcing

134: is taken to be white random noise with zero mean. When the

135: forcing is stationary in time this object is {\em time independent}.

136: Anomalous scaling means that

137: \begin{equation}

138: F^{(m)}(\lambda \B.r_1, \cdots, \lambda\B.r_m)

139: =\lambda^{\zeta_m} F^{(m)}(\B.r_1,\cdots, \B.r_m) \ , \label{zeta}

140: \end{equation}

141: with $\zeta_m$ having a non-trivial dependence on $m$. In what

142: follows we will assume that the advecting velocity field

143: itself is fully turbulent, and that its correlation functions are also

144: exhibiting scaling behavior like Eq.~(\ref{zeta}).

145: 

146: The main point of this paper is that the statistical

147: theory of the active fields calls for consideration of 

148: auxiliary passive fields that satisfy the same equations 

149: of motion as the active fields, but

150: {\em do not} affect the velocity field itself. In other words,

151: For the two problems at hand we consider the following equations of motion~:

152: \begin{eqnarray}

153: \frac{\partial \B.u}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

154: \B.\nabla \B.u&=&-\B.\nabla p+\nu \nabla^2 \B.u

155: +\alpha g T\hat z \ ,\nonumber\\

156: \frac{\partial T}{\partial t} + \B.u \cdot

157: \B.\nabla T &=& \kappa \nabla^2 T + f  \ ,\nonumber\\

158: \frac{\partial C}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

159: \B.\nabla C&=&\kappa \nabla^2 C+\tilde f \ , \label{passives}

160: \end{eqnarray}

161: on the one hand, and

162: \begin{eqnarray}

163: \frac{\partial \B.u}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

164: \B.\nabla \B.u&=&-\B.\nabla p +\B.b\cdot\B.\nabla \B.b +\nu \nabla^2 \B.u

165:  \ , \nonumber\\ 

166: \frac{\partial \B.b}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

167: \B.\nabla \B.b&=& \B.b\cdot\B.\nabla \B.u +\kappa \nabla^2 \B.b+\B.f\ ,

168: \nonumber\\

169: \frac{\partial \B.q}{\partial t}+\B.u\cdot

170: \B.\nabla \B.q&=& \B.q\cdot\B.\nabla \B.u +\kappa \nabla^2 \B.q+\tilde\B.f \

171: ,

172: \label{passivev}

173: \end{eqnarray}

174: on the other.

175: 

176: Note that the velocity field that appears in the equations for

177: the passive fields is {\em the same} as the velocity field that results

178: from solving the coupled equations of the  associated equations for

179: the active fields. The forcing terms $\tilde f$ in Eq.~(\ref{passives})

180: (resp. $\tilde\B.f$ in Eq.~(\ref{passivev})) have the same statistics as the

181: forcing

182: terms $f$ in Eq. (\ref{active})  (resp. $\B.f$ in Eq. (\ref{MHD})), but they

183: must have

184: different realizations. While it is not true of course that the statistics

185: of the passive fields are independent of the statistics of the velocity 

186: fields, it is 

187: true that the statistics of the velocity fields  are independent of the

188: statistics of the passive forcing terms. This is, however, not the case

189: with the active forcing terms since these forcing terms affect the

190: active fields that affect in their turn the velocity fields. It is thus

191: not at all evident at first sight that there should be any relation,

192: apriori,

193: between the statistics of the active fields and their passive

194: counterparts. On the other hand, if there were such a relationship,

195: this would be very advantageous, since the statistics of the

196: passive fields is understood as explained next.

197: 

198: To understand the progress made in the context of passive fields

199: \cite{01FGV,01CV}, note

200: that the passive fields satisfy a linear equation of motion that

201: can be written as

202: \begin{equation}

203: \frac{\partial \phi(\B.r,t)}{\partial t}=\C.L \phi(\B.r,t)+f(\B.r,t) \ ,

204: \label{defL}

205: \end{equation}

206: with the actual form of the operator $\C.L$ determined by the problem at

207: hand.

208: In recent work \cite{01ABCPV,01CGP} it was clarified why and how passive

209: fields

210: exhibit anomalous scaling, when the velocity field is a generic

211: turbulent field. The key is to consider a

212: problem  associated with Eq. (\ref{defL}) which is the {\em decaying

213: problem} in which the forcing $f(\B.r,t)$ is put to zero.

214: The problem becomes then a linear initial value problem,

215: \begin{equation}

216: \partial \phi/\partial t =\C.L \phi\ , \label{decay}

217: \end{equation}

218: with a formal solution

219: \begin{equation}

220: \phi(\B.r,t) = \int d\B.r' \B.R(\B.r,\B.r',t) \phi(\B.r',0) \ , \label{oper}

221: \end{equation} 

222: with the operator 

223: \begin{equation}

224: \B.R\equiv T^+ \exp[{\int_0^t ds \C.L(s)}]\ , \label{defR}

225: \end{equation}

226: and $T^+$ being the time ordering operator.

227: Define next the {\em time dependent} correlation

228: functions of the decaying problem:

229: \begin{equation}

230: G^{(m)}(\B.r_1,\cdots ,\B.r_m,t)\equiv

231: \langle \phi(\B.r_1,t)\cdots

232: \phi(\B.r_m,t)\rangle \ . \label{defG}

233: \end{equation}

234: Here pointed brackets without subscript $f$ refer to the decaying

235: object in which averaging is taken with respect to realizations of

236: the velocity field only. As a result of Eq. (\ref{oper}) the decaying

237: correlation functions are developed by a propagator

238: $\C.P^{(m)}_{\underline{\B.r}|\underline{\B.\rho}}$, (with

239: $\underline {\B.r}\equiv \B.r_1,\B.r_2,\!\cdots\!,\B.r_m$)~:

240: \begin{equation}

241: G^{(m)}(\B.r_1,\!\cdots\!, \B.r_m,t)=\int\!\! d\underline{\B.\rho}

242:  \C.P^{(m)}_{\underline{\B.r}|\underline{\B.\rho}}(t)~

243: G^{(m)}(\B.\rho_1,\!\cdots\!, \B.\rho_m,0) \ . \label{defprop}

244: \end{equation}

245: 

246: In writing this equation we made explicit use of the fact that

247: the {\em initial} distribution of the passive field $\phi(\B.r,0)$

248: is statistically independent of the advecting velocity field. Thus

249: the operator $\C.P^{(m)}_{\underline{\B.r}|\underline{\B.\rho}}$

250: can be written explicitly

251: \begin{equation}

252: \C.P^{(m)}_{\underline{\B.r}|\underline{\B.\rho}}(t)\equiv

253: \langle  \B.R(\B.r_1,\B.\rho_1,t) \B.R(\B.r_2,\B.\rho_2,t)\cdots

254: \B.R(\B.r_m,\B.\rho_m,t)\rangle \ .

255: \end{equation}

256: 

257: The key finding \cite{01ABCPV,01CGP} is that the operator

258: $\C.P^{(m)}_{\underline{\B.r}|

259: \underline{\B.\rho}}$ possesses {\em left} eigenfunctions of eigenvalue

260: 1, i.~e. there exist time-independent functions

261: $Z^{(m)}(\B.r_1,\B.r_2,\cdots ,\B.r_m)$ satisfying

262: \begin{equation}

263: Z^{(m)}(\B.r_1,\cdots, \B.r_m)=\int d\underline {\B.\rho}

264: \C.P^{(m)}_{\underline{\B.\rho}|\underline{\B.r}}(t)

265: Z^{(m)}(\B.\rho_1,\cdots, \B.\rho_m) \ .\label{zeromode}

266: \end{equation}

267: The functions $Z^{(m)}$ are referred to as ``Statistically Preserved

268: Structures'', being invariant to the dynamics, even though

269: {\em the operator is strongly time dependent and decaying}. How to form,

270: from these

271: functions, infinitely many conserved variables in the decaying

272: problem was shown in \cite{01ABCPV}, and is discussed again in

273: Sect. \ref{anal}. The functions

274: $Z^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})$ are homogeneous functions of

275: their arguments, with anomalous scaling exponents $\zeta_m$:

276: \begin{equation}

277: Z^{(m)}(\lambda\underline{ \B.r}) = \lambda^{\zeta_m}

278: Z^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})+\dots

279: \end{equation}

280: where ``$\dots$'' stand for subleading scaling terms. Since

281: Eq.~(\ref{zeromode})

282: contains $Z^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})$ on both sides, the scaling exponent

283: $\zeta_m$

284: cannot be determined

285: from dimensional considerations, and it can be anomalous.

286: More importantly,

287: it was shown that the correlation functions of the forced case,

288: $F^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})$ Eq. (\ref{corr}), have exactly the same scaling

289: exponents

290: as $Z^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})$ \cite{01CGP}. In the scaling sense

291: \begin{equation}

292: F^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})\sim Z^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r}) \ .

293: \label{scalesame}

294: \end{equation}

295: This is how anomalous scaling in passive fields is understood.

296: Lastly, we note that for the operator governing the time derivative

297: of Eq. (\ref{defG}), $Z^{(m)}(\underline{\B.r})$ is a zero mode. We

298: will use the terms ``Statistically Preserved Structures" and ``zero modes"

299: interchangeably.

300: 

301: Of course, returning to the active fields, it makes no sense to consider the

302: decaying

303: problem; as the active field decays, the statistics of the velocity field

304: changes, and there is very little to say. On the other

305: hand, we propose that it is possible to learn a great deal from considering

306: the forced

307: solutions, comparing the forced correlation functions of the active field

308: with those of the passive field when advected

309: by the same velocity field \cite{01CMMV}. The rest of this paper is devoted

310: to making

311: this point clear and solid.

312: 

313: In Sect. \ref{convection} we discuss the active problem (\ref{Boussinesq})

314: in comparison with the passive problem (\ref{passives}). A preliminary

315: report of the correspondence between these problems was presented in

316: \cite{02CCGP}. Since we are interested in points of principle rather than

317: quantitative details, we opt to work with a shell model of the turbulent

318: convection problem. We

319: will argue (cf. Sect. \ref{summary}) that there are excellent reasons to

320: believe that the

321: results found for  the shell model translate verbatim to the partial

322: differential

323: equations. The main result of Sect. \ref{convection} is that the forced

324: $2m$th-order

325: correlation functions of the active and passive fields are both dominated by

326: the

327: Statistically Preserved Structures of the decaying passive problem,

328: i.~e. the functions  $Z^{(2m)}(\underline{\B.r})$ of Eq. (\ref{zeromode}).

329: The anomalous

330: scaling exponents are the same for the passive and active {\em forced}

331: correlation

332: functions, they are universal (independent of the forcing $f(\B.r,t)$) and

333: determined by

334: the scaling exponents of  $Z^{(2m)}(\underline{\B.r})$. We present a careful

335: discussion of the role of the statistical correlations between the forcing

336: and the velocity field that exist in the active case, but are absent

337: in the passive case. In the present problem the net result of these

338: correlations is just an amplitude factor relating the moments of the

339: two fields. In Sect. \ref{vector} we turn to a shell model of

340: magneto-hydrodynamics.

341: On the face of it, this is a counter-example to the previous case: the

342: active and

343: passive fields exhibit radically different scaling exponents. The main

344: result

345: of this section is that nevertheless the Statistically Preserved Structures

346: of the passive problem are shown to dominate the statistics of the active

347: problem, but the existence of a conservation law in the latter results

348: in an exact cancellation of the amplitude of the leading zero mode.

349: We identify analytically the leading and subleading exponents of the

350: passive problem, and then observe the cancellation of the leading

351: contribution by the dynamics. The Summary section \ref{summary} presents

352: the general lesson for the statistical physics of the (nonlinear)

353: active problem. We propose that the zero modes of the auxiliary 

354: passive fields will always have a dominant role in the

355: statistics of active fields. The active fields will thus

356: share the same scaling exponents as the passive fields unless there

357: exist additional conservation laws for the active fields. In all cases

358: the calculation of the active scaling exponents can be achieved in the

359: context of the passive problem, which boils down to finding the 

360: zero modes of a linear operator. 

361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

362: \section{Active and passive scalars in a model of turbulent convection}

363: \label{convection}

364: \subsection{Model and numerical results}

365: In this section we 

366: examine in detail a shell model of active and passive scalars

367: for which the statistical object can be computed to high

368: accuracy. We consider a model that reproduces the conservation laws and

369: the form of coupling between the active field and the velocity field in Eqs.

370: (\ref{active}) and (\ref{Boussinesq}). Our model is a variant

371: of the shell model studied in ref. \cite{Brand}:

372: \begin{widetext}

373: \begin{eqnarray}

374: \frac{\partial u_n}{\partial t}&=&ak_n(u_{n-1}^2-\lambda u_nu_{n+1})

375: +bk_n(u_nu_{n-1}-\lambda u^2_{n+1})-\nu k_n^2 u_n+T_n\ ,\label{convu}\\

376: \frac{\partial T_n}{\partial t}&=&\tilde ak_n(u_{n-1}T_{n-1}-\lambda

377: u_nT_{n+1})

378: +\tilde b k_n(u_nT_{n-1}-\lambda u_{n+1}T_{n+1})-\kappa k_n^2

379: T_n+f_0\delta_{n,0}\

380: ,\label{convT}\\

381: \frac{\partial C_n}{\partial t}&=&\tilde ak_n(u_{n-1}C_{n-1}-\lambda

382: u_nC_{n+1})

383: +\tilde bk_n(u_n C_{n-1}-\lambda u_{n+1}C_{n+1})-\kappa k_n^2

384: C_n+f_0\delta_{n,0} \ .

385: \label{convC}

386: \end{eqnarray}

387: \end{widetext}

388: In this model all the field variables are real and $n$ stands for the index

389: of a 

390: shell of wavevector

391: $k_n=k_0\lambda^n$, with $n=0,1,\cdots, N-1$. We take $\lambda=2$, and the

392: parameters used

393: in the simulation are $a=0.01$, $\tilde a=\tilde b=b=1$,

394: $k_0=1$, $\kappa=\nu=5\times 10^{-4}$. The number of shells

395: is $N=30$, and the forcing is white noise of zero mean on the first shell.

396: 

397: Without the coupling to $T_n$, the velocity equation has

398: an inviscid unstable Kolmogorov fixed point, $u_n\sim k_n^{-1/3}$.

399: This is changed by the coupling \cite{Brand}, and the system of equations

400: for $T_n$ and $u_n$ exhibits an inviscid unstable Bolgiano

401: fixed point, $u_n\sim k_n^{-3/5}$, $T_n\sim k_n^{-1/5}$.

402: The chaotic dynamics renders the statistics of the velocity field strongly

403: non-Gaussian (cf. inset in Fig. \ref{scexp}). The exponents $\zeta_n^T$

404: for the active scalar are markedly anomalous, whereas, for the velocity,

405: they appear closer to normal (see Fig. \ref{scexp}).  The equation of motion

406: for the passive field $C$ is identical to the equation of motion of $T$,

407: but it does not affect the velocity field $u$. This equation has

408: a $C\to -C$ symmetry, whereas the coupled system of $T$ and $u$ lacks

409: this symmetry. This difference is reflected in the statistics of the two

410: fields.

411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

413: \begin{figure}

414: \centering

415: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig1.eps}

416: \caption{The scaling exponents $\zeta_n^u$ of the velocity field (circles)

417: and $\zeta_n^T$ of the active scalar field (squares) for even $n$'s.

418: The solid lines are respectively $3n/5$ and $n/5$ for the velocity

419: and the active scalar fields. Shown in the inset is

420: the PDF of $z\equiv u_n/\langle  u_n^2 \rangle^{1/2}$

421: at shell $n=14$.}

422: \label{scexp}

423: \end{figure}

424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

425: 

426: To demonstrate this

427: difference between the active and passive fields, we show in Fig. \ref{PDF}

428: the probability distribution functions (PDF) of $x= \phi_n/\langle

429: \phi_n^2\rangle^{1/2}$  where $ \phi_n$ is $ T_n$ or $C_n$,

430: for $n=14$. One clearly sees the symmetry of the PDF

431: of the passive scalar, in contradistinction to the asymmetry

432: of the PDF of the active scalar. This is typical to all $n$

433: in the inertial range. This is a demonstration of the

434: discussion after Eq. (\ref{phioft}). For the passive scalar the

435: odd moments vanish, whereas for the active scalar they all exist.

436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

437: \begin{figure}

438: \centering

439: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig2.eps}

440: \caption{The PDF's of the active (solid) and passive (dashed)

441: scalars at shell $n=14$. Note that the PDF of

442: the active scalar is asymmetric.}

443: \label{PDF}

444: \end{figure}

445: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

446: The situation is altogether different for the statistics of

447: even moments. To demonstrate the difference we plot in Fig. \ref{PDFsq}

448: the (typical) PDF of $\tilde T_n^2$ and $C_n^2$ for $n=9$ and 14,

449: where $\tilde T_n\equiv T_n-\langle T_n\rangle$. In plotting

450: we realize that the passive scalar is defined up to a constant,

451: so for the passive scalar the PDF is plotted for the rescaled

452: variable $\beta C^2_n$, where

453: \begin{equation}\beta=\langle \tilde T _n^2\rangle_f /

454: \langle C_n^2\rangle_f \approx 0.6327 \ . \label{defbeta}

455: \end{equation} 

456: Note that there is only one

457: numerical freedom $\beta$, constant for all $n$ in the inertial range.

458: An understanding of this numerical constant based on dynamical

459: considerations

460: is given in the next subsection.

461: 

462: We find very close agreement of all the PDF's in the

463: inertial range.

464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

465: \begin{figure}

466: \centering

467: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig3.eps}

468: \caption{

469: The PDF's of $y$ where $y=\tilde T_n^2$ (solid)

470: or $\beta C_n^2$ (dashed) at shells $n=9$ and 14.}

471: \label{PDFsq}

472: \end{figure}

473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

474: The identity of the PDF's of $\tilde T_n^2$ and $C_n^2$ translates

475: automatically to the identity of the even-order

476: structure functions $F^{(2m)}(k_n)\equiv \langle \tilde

477: \phi_n^{2m}\rangle_f$,

478: where $\tilde \phi_n = \tilde T_n$ or $C_n$ (up to a constant $\beta^m$).

479: This is demonstrated in Fig. \ref{structure}.

480: We see that the 2nd, 4th and 6th-order

481: structure functions are barely distinguishable, with the

482: same scaling exponents in the inertial range.

483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

484: \begin{figure}

485: \centering

486: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig4.eps}

487: \caption{

488: The even-order structure functions $\langle \tilde T_n^{2m} \rangle_f$

489: (circles)

490: and $\langle \beta^m C_n^{2m} \rangle_f$ (squares), with

491: $m=1$, 2 and 3, from top to bottom.}

492: \label{structure}

493: \end{figure}

494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

495: Finally, we demonstrate that the identity of the statistics

496: of the squares of the passive and

497: active scalars transcends structure functions. Consider

498: for example the multi-point correlation functions

499:  $\langle \tilde T_n^2

500: \tilde T^2_{n+5}\rangle$

501: and $\langle \tilde T^2_n \tilde T^2_{n+5}\tilde T^2_{2n}\rangle$.

502: In Fig. \ref{multi} these  correlation functions

503: are compared to their passive counterparts.

504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

505: \begin{figure}

506: \centering

507: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig5.eps}

508: \caption{Upper:

509: $\log_{10}\langle \tilde T_n^2\tilde T_{n+5}^2 \rangle_f$ (circles) and

510: $\log_{10}\langle \beta^2 C_n^2C_{n+5}^2 \rangle_f$ (squares). Lower:

511: $\log_{10} \langle \tilde T_n^2\tilde T_{n+5}^2\tilde T_{2n}^2 \rangle_f$

512: (circles) 

513: and $\log_{10} \langle \beta^3C_n^2C_{n+5}^2C_{2n}^2 \rangle_f$ (squares).}

514: \label{multi}

515: \end{figure}

516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

517: The conclusion is that again the multi-point correlation

518: functions are indistinguishable once the passive

519: ones are rescaled by $\beta^q$ where $q$ is the overall

520: order of the correlation function.

521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

522: \subsection{Analysis of the results}

523: \label{anal}

524: To understand the results we start with the passive field,

525: demonstrating that its forced structure functions are

526: actually Statistically Preserved Structures. Consider then

527: the decaying passive problem, i.~e. Eq.~(\ref{convC}) without the

528: forcing term. The initial value problem for the time dependent

529: structure functions $G^{(2m)}(k_n,t)\equiv \langle C_n^{2m}(t) \rangle$

530: is the shell analog of Eq. (\ref{defprop}),

531: \begin{equation}

532: G^{(2m)}(k_n,t) =  \C.P^{(2m)}_{n,n'}(t) G^{(2m)}(k_{n'},t=0) \ ,

533: \label{defprop2}

534: \end{equation}

535: which defines the $2m$th-order

536: propagator $\C.P^{(2m)}_{n,n'}(t)$. Here and below, repeated indices are

537: being summed over. In Fig. \ref{SPSpas}

538: we show typical decay plots for the quantity $K^{(2m)}\equiv \sum_n

539: G^{(2m)}(k_n,t)$ for

540: $m=1,2,3$, starting from the initial conditions

541: $G^{(2m)}(k_n,t=0)=\delta_{n,16}$.

542: 

543: Statistically Preserved Structures in this case 

544: represent left-eigenfunctions

545: $Z^{(2m)}(k_n)$ of eigenvalue 1 satisfying

546: \begin{equation}

547: Z^{(2m)}(k_{n'}) =  Z^{(2m)}(k_n)\C.P^{(2m)}_{n,n'}(t)  \ . \label{defZ}

548: \end{equation}

549: The statement that we want to demonstrate is that the forced

550: structure functions $F_n^{(2m)}$ of the passive scalar scale like these

551: eigen-modes of the decaying problem:

552: \begin{equation}

553: F^{(2m)}(k_n) \equiv \langle C^{2m}_n\rangle_f \sim Z^{(2m)}(k_n) \ .

554: \label{true}

555: \end{equation}

556: To demonstrate this we use the method of \cite{01ABCPV} and

557: define the quantities $I^{(2m)}$,

558: \begin{equation}

559: I^{(2m)} = \sum_n G^{(2m)}(k_n,t) F^{(2m)}(k_n) \ .

560: \end{equation}

561: Using Eqs. (\ref{defprop2}) and (\ref{defZ}) we see that if

562: Eq.~(\ref{true}) is obeyed, than the quantities $I^{(2m)}$ are time

563: independent. Indeed, in Fig. \ref{SPSpas} we demonstrate the stationarity

564: of these objects, thus supporting Eq. (\ref{true}). The analytic

565: explanation as to why the forced solutions agree with the Statistically

566: Preserved Structures of the decaying problem was provided in \cite{01CGP}.

567: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

568: \begin{figure}

569: \centering

570: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig6a.eps}

571: \centering

572: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig6b.eps}

573: \centering

574: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig6c.eps}

575: \caption{The decaying objects $K^{(2m)}$ (solid lines) and the conserved

576: objects

577: $I^{(2m)}$ (dashed lines) as a function of time, for $m=1,2$ and 3. Time is

578: measured

579: here in units of the largest scale eddy turn over time $\tau_0\equiv

580: [k_0 \sqrt{S_2(k_0)}]^{-1}\approx 22$. In

581: panels b and c we include in dotted lines the quantity $I^{(2m)}$ in which

582: we replaced

583: $F^{(2m)}$ by its dimensional prediction $[F^{(2)}]^m$. We see that using

584: the

585: dimensional exponent does not make $I^{(2m)}$ time invariant.}

586: \label{SPSpas}

587: \end{figure}

588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

589: Before turning to the active field, it is worthwhile to observe

590: how any initial condition of the decaying passive field lands

591: on the scaling solution that is represented by the Statistically

592: Preserved Structure. Consider the initial value experiment that is

593: reported in Fig. \ref{initsc}.  Here we start,

594: as an example, from the initial value

595: $C_n(t=0)\propto k_n^{2/3}$. In this initial condition the order

596: of the amplitudes is inverted with respect to the spectrum of

597: the passive scalar.  We plot, as a function of time,

598: the trajectories of

599: $C_n(t)$ as computed just from this initial condition, averaged over

600: 650 realizations. We see that the trajectories

601: land on a decaying scaling solution in which the order of the amplitudes and

602: the ratios between them are identical to the spectrum of the zero mode of

603: the 

604: passive field; the decay that we see, at a rate proportional to $1/t^2$,

605: is entirely due to dissipative effects, as explained in some detail

606: in \cite{01CGP}.

607: 

608: Finally, we need to understand how the forced active scalar $T$ falls on

609: the Statistically Preserved Structure of the decaying passive

610: problem, and what is the origin of the factor $\beta$ in (\ref{defbeta}).

611: To this aim we note that both equations for passive and active fields can

612: be written as

613: \begin{equation}

614: \frac{\partial \phi_n}{\partial t}=\C. L_{n,n'}\phi_{n'}

615: +f_0\delta_{n,0}\ . \label{convphi}

616: \end{equation}

617: This equation has a formal solution in the form

618: \begin{equation}

619: \phi_n(t) = R_{n,n'}(t|0)\phi_{n'}(t=0)

620: +\int_0^t d\tau R_{n,0}(t|\tau)f_0(\tau)\ , 

621: \end{equation}

622: where $R_{n,n'}(t|\tau)$ is the shell analog of the operator (\ref{defR}),

623: \begin{equation}

624: R_{n,n'}(t|\tau) \equiv \left\{T^+ \int_\tau^t \exp

625: [\C.L(s)]ds\right\}_{n,n'} \ .

626: \label{phioft}

627: \end{equation}

628: The first difference between the

629: active and passive fields is encountered when we take the

630: average of this equation. For the passive case, the average

631: can be taken by decorrelating $f_0$ and $R_{n,n'}$. 

632: Since the mean of the force $f_0$ vanishes, we get

633: \begin{equation}

634: \langle C_n \rangle_f=0  

635: \label{meanC}

636: \end{equation}

637: Such a decorrelation is, however, not 

638: allowed in the active case since the forcing $f_0$

639: is correlated with $T$, which is itself correlated 

640: with $\B.u$ and thus with $R_{n,n'}$. Hence 

641: \begin{equation}

642: \langle T_n \rangle_f=\langle R_{n,n'}(t|0)T_{n'}(t=0)\rangle_f

643: \nonumber\\+\int_0^t d\tau \langle R_{n,0}(t|\tau)f_0(\tau)\rangle_f 

644: \label{meanT}

645: \end{equation}

646: and $T$ has a non-zero mean.

647: Similarly, the passive scalar has zero odd moments and its PDF is

648: symmetric. On the other hand, the active scalar has nonvanishing odd

649: moments and its PDF is asymmetric.

650: 

651: In spite of this great difference between the active and passive scalars,

652: there is a close affinity between the active field and

653: the Statistically Preserved Structures of the passive field. 

654: To see this, we note that

655: the first term on the RHS of Eq. (\ref{meanT}) represents a decaying field.

656: We expect that if the initial condition $T_n(t=0)$ has any component on

657: the Statistically Preserved Structure of the passive field, it will quickly

658: relax everything else and will land exactly on that solution. In this

659: respect it is just the same as the initial value experiment reported

660: in Fig. \ref{initsc}. In terms of the relative amplitudes of

661: the different $n$ shells

662: there is nothing in the fate of the initial value term to distinguish the

663: active and the

664: passive fields.

665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

666: \begin{figure}

667: \centering

668: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig7.eps}

669: \caption{An example of the fate of an initial value term as a function of

670: time,

671: in units of $\tau_0$. The initial amplitudes are inverted in order compared

672: to the 2nd order zero modes of the passive field. Shown are shells

673: $n=5,\:7,\dots,\:19$. }

674: \label{initsc}

675: \end{figure}

676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

677: The second term on the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{meanT}) is more subtle. First, we

678: note

679: that for every value of $\tau$ we again face a decaying experiment that

680: takes

681: place between the times $\tau$ and $t$. In the language of the passive

682: field, the integrand can be read from a decaying field with initial

683: condition $C_n(t=\tau)=f_0(\tau)\delta_{n,0}$. Indeed, in our simulations

684: below

685: this is precisely how we evaluate integrals of this type. We break the

686: interval $[0,t]$ into $N$ sub-intervals $\{\tau_i\}_{i=1}^N$, $\tau_i =

687: (i/N)t$,

688: and start a decaying experiment with

689: initial conditions $f(\tau_i)\delta_{n,0}$. Measuring $C_n(t)$ and summing

690: up

691: all the contributions yields an approximation to the integral. Every term in

692: the integrand is expected to land, for most of the time $t-\tau$, on the

693: scaling solution of the passive field, in much of the same way that the

694: initial value term does.

695: Thus both terms in Eq. (\ref{meanT}) are expected to scale like the passive

696: field, which nevertheless itself has zero amplitude due to the symmetry.

697: 

698: The correlation effects that play a role for the active scalar will be

699: responsible for the factor $\beta$ that we discovered in the numerics.

700: To see this we need to consider the 2nd order structure functions:

701: \begin{eqnarray}

702: &&F^{(2)}(k_n)= \langle [R_{n,n'}(t|0)\phi_{n'}(t=0)]^2\rangle_f\label{F2}\\

703: &&+2\langle R_{n,n'}(t|0)\phi_{n'}(t=0)\int_0^t d\tau

704: R_{n,0}(t|\tau)f_0(\tau)\rangle_f

705: \nonumber\\

706: &&+\int_0^t d\tau' d\tau''\label{second}\langle

707: R_{n,0}(t|\tau')R_{n,0}(t|\tau'')f_0(\tau')f_0(\tau'')\rangle_f \ .

708: \nonumber

709: \end{eqnarray}

710: For sufficiently long time the first two terms, denoted below as

711: $\C.I_1$ and $\C.I_2$ respectively, do not contribute to the

712: structure functions, and any difference between the active and passive

713: fields must be ascribed to the last term. The last term, denoted here

714: as $\C.I_3$, has a ``diagonal"

715: contribution, which is obtained for $\tau'=\tau''$ and an ``off-diagonal"

716: contribution, which is the rest of the integral for which  $\tau'\ne

717: \tau''$.

718: For the passive field, $R_{n,n'}$ and $f_0$ decouple and only the 

719: diagonal part exists. For the active field there is no decoupling. 

720: Denoting this term $\C.I_{3,d}$, it

721: reads respectively

722: \begin{eqnarray}

723: \!\!\!\!\C.I_{3,d}\!\!&=&\!\!\int ds\langle

724: R_{n,0}(t|s)R_{n,0}(t|s)\rangle_f f_0^2 \quad \text{(passive)}\ ,

725: \label{one}\\

726: \!\!\!\!\C.I_{3,d}\!\!&=&\!\!\!\int_0^t \!\!ds\langle

727: R_{n,0}(t|s)R_{n,0}(t|s)f_0(s)f_0(s)\rangle_f \ \text{(active)}. \label{two}

728: \end{eqnarray}

729: In Fig. \ref{diagonal} we compare the integrands of these two expressions,

730: measured directly in our simulation as explained above.

731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

732: \begin{figure}

733: \centering

734: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig8.eps}

735: \caption{Comparison of the integrands in Eqs (\ref{one}) (the passive case)

736: and (\ref{two}) (the active case) for $n=10$. The plots are indistinguishable.}

737: \label{diagonal}

738: \end{figure}

739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

741: \begin{figure}

742: \centering

743: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig9.eps}

744: \caption{The integral $\C.I_3$ in comparison to the diagonal

745: part $\C.I_{3,d}$ for $n=10$. Upper panel: the passive field. The integral agrees

746: with the diagonal part at all times. Lower panel: the active field. The

747: deviations are due to the non-vanishing contribution of the off-diagonal

748: integral, which is also displayed in the next figure. The dashed

749: line in both panels represents the stationary value of the

750: corresponding second order structure function.}

751: \label{intmindiag}

752: \end{figure}

753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

754: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

755: \begin{figure}

756: \centering

757: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig10.eps}

758: \caption{The off-diagonal integral for $n=10$, computed as

759: $\langle [\phi_n(t)-R_{n,n'}(t|0)\phi_{n'}(t=0)]^2\rangle -\C.I_{3,d}$  for

760: the passive and active fields

761: respectively. For the passive field (dotted line) it fluctuates around zero,

762: while for

763: the active field it begins positive, and then turns negative. For longer

764: times it saturates at a constant negative value, giving rise to the

765: factor $\beta$.}

766: \label{beta}

767: \end{figure}

768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

769: We can see that there is not much difference

770: between them; the diagonal term cannot be blamed for the factor $\beta$.

771: On the other hand, in Fig. \ref{intmindiag} we show the full integral

772: $\C.I_3$ and compare it with its diagonal term. We see that in the passive

773: case the diagonal part is everything, whereas in the active case there

774: is a difference. Lastly, we show that this difference is precisely

775: the source of the factor $\beta$. In Fig. \ref{beta} we show

776: $\langle [\phi_n(t)-R_{n,n'}(t|0)\phi_{n'}(t=0)]^2\rangle

777: -\C.I_{3,d}$ for the passive and the

778: active fields. The former fluctuates all the time around zero. The latter

779: is positive initially, and then becomes negative. For later times it

780: saturates

781: at a negative value that is precisely responsible for the factor $\beta$.

782: 

783: In summary, we find that the even correlation functions of the active

784: and passive scalars share the same scaling exponents simply because

785: the zero modes of the decaying passive problem dominate the statistics

786: of both fields. It is thus possible to understand the anomalous

787: statistics of the active field in the same way as that of the passive

788: field. We believe that this is a significant result that should be

789: put to further experimental and numerical tests in the PDE version

790: of the problem. We will return to this point in the discussion.

791: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

792: \section{Active and passive fields in a model of magnetohydrodynamics}

793: \label{vector}

794: \subsection{Model and Numerical Results}

795: 

796: In this section we examine a shell model that reproduces the type

797: of coupling and the conservation laws of Eqs.~(\ref{MHD}).  We need to be

798: careful about the dynamo effect which we want to avoid in order to

799: have stationary statistics. We thus construct the model to mimic

800: 2-dimensional

801: MHD, in which there is an inverse cascade of energy. Accordingly we need to

802: have large scale damping terms in the velocity equation, and

803: a force at intermediate scales. In all our simulations below we force both

804: the velocity and the active

805: fields on shells 10 and 11 (denoted by $n_f$), using white noise of zero

806: mean. We run the

807: model with 35 shells. The equations are an adaptation of the MHD

808: shell model of \cite{98GC} to the Sabra shell model \cite{98LPPPV}. All

809: field variables are complex numbers:

810: \begin{widetext}

811: \begin{eqnarray}

812: \label{sabrau}

813: \frac{d u_n}{dt}&=& i k_n [a \lambda (u_{n+1}^*u_{n+2}-b_{n+1}^*b_{n+2})

814: + b (u_{n-1}^*u_{n+1} - b_{n-1}^*b_{n+1})-c \lambda^{-1}(u_{n-2}u_{n-1} -

815: b_{n-2}b_{n-1})]\nonumber\\

816: &&+ f'_n \delta_{n,n_f} + \nu k_n^2 u_n+\tilde \nu k_n^{-4} u_n\ , \\

817: \frac{d b_n}{dt}&=& i k_n [\tilde{a} \lambda

818: (u_{n+1}^*b_{n+2}-b_{n+1}^*u_{n+2})

819: + \tilde{b} (u_{n-1}^*b_{n+1} - b_{n-1}^*u_{n+1})

820: -\tilde{c} \lambda^{-1}(u_{n-2}b_{n-1} - b_{n-2}u_{n-1})]\nonumber\\

821: &&+ f_n \delta_{n,n_f} +\kappa k_n^2 b_n +\tilde \kappa k_n^{-4} b_n\ .

822: \label{sabrab}

823: \end{eqnarray}

824: \end{widetext}

825: The coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$, $\tilde{a}$, $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{c}$

826: can be parametrized as follows~:

827: \begin{equation}

828: \begin{array}{l@{\quad}l@{\quad}l}

829: a = 1\ ,&b = -\delta\ ,&c = -(1-\delta)\ ,\\

830: \tilde{a}=1-\delta-\delta_m\ ,&\tilde{b}=\delta_m\ ,& \tilde{c}=1-\delta_m\

831: .

832: \end{array}

833: \label{sabraparam}

834: \end{equation}

835: \label{sixparam}

836: This choice ensures the conservation of the total energy and ``cross

837: helicity"

838: in the inviscid limit $\nu=\tilde \nu=\kappa=\tilde \kappa = f = f' =0$,

839: \begin{eqnarray}

840: E&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_n (|u_n|^2 + |b_n|^2)\ , \label{toten}\\

841: K&=&\sum_n \Re(u_n^* b_n)\ .\label{crosshe}

842: \end{eqnarray}

843: To mimic the magnetic helicity, we can write down a generalized quantity

844: \begin{equation}

845: H=\frac{1}{2}\sum_n \mathrm{sign}(\delta-1)^n\frac{|b_n|^2}{k_n^\alpha},

846: \label{magnhe}

847: \end{equation}

848: with $\alpha>0$ a fixed parameter. We demand conservation of this

849: generalized

850: ``magnetic helicity", together with absence of dynamo effect. This implies

851: \begin{eqnarray}

852: \delta>1&\rightarrow&

853: \left\{\begin{array}{l}

854: \delta = 1 + \lambda^{-\alpha}\ ,\\

855: \delta_m=- 1/(\lambda^\alpha - 1)\ ,

856: \end{array}\right.

857: \label{deltagt1}

858: \end{eqnarray}

859: On the other hand, when $\delta<1$ one can have dynamo, and therefore

860: no stationary statistics.

861: 

862: In addition to the conservation laws the equations

863: of motion remain invariant to the phase transformations

864: $u_n\to u_n\exp(i\phi_n)$ and $b_n\to b_n\exp(i\psi_n)$. The conditions are

865: \begin{eqnarray}

866: \phi_n + \phi_{n+1} - \phi_{n+2} &=& 0\ ,\label{phases1}\\

867: \phi_{n} + \psi_{n+1} - \psi_{n+2} &=& 0\ ,\label{phases2}\\

868: \psi_n + \phi_{n+1}-\psi_{n+2} &=&0\ ,\label{phases3}\\

869: \psi_{n} + \psi_{n+1} - \phi_{n+2} &=& 0\ .\label{phases4}

870: \end{eqnarray}

871: This implies $\psi_n = \phi_n$ $\forall n$.

872: 

873: The passive field is denoted by $q_n$, whose evolution is given by an

874: equation similar to Eq. (\ref{sabrab}), i.~e.

875: \begin{widetext}

876: \begin{eqnarray}

877: &&\frac{d q_n}{dt}= i k_n [\tilde{a} \lambda

878: (u_{n+1}^*q_{n+2}-q_{n+1}^*u_{n+2})

879: + \tilde{b} (u_{n-1}^*q_{n+1} - q_{n-1}^*u_{n+1})- \tilde{c}

880: \lambda^{-1}(u_{n-2}q_{n-1} - q_{n-2}u_{n-1})]\nonumber\\

881: &&+\kappa k_n^2 q_n +f_n\delta_{n,n_f}\ . \label{sabraq}

882: \end{eqnarray}

883: \end{widetext}

884: The fields $q_n$ and $b_n$ are advected by the same velocity field, however

885: $b_n$ is

886: active, while $q_n$ is passive. The inviscid passive equation has only

887: one conserved variable, i.~e. Eq. (\ref{magnhe}) with $q_n$ replacing

888: $b_n$. It also satisfies the same phase relations as the active

889: field. We want to know whether the

890: scaling properties of $b_n$ are determined once again by the Statistically

891: Preserved

892: Structures of the decaying problem of the passive field $q_n$.

893: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

894: \begin{figure}

895: \centering

896: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig11.eps}

897: \caption{Structure functions of order 2 ($\times$), 3 (+)

898: and 4 ($\diamond$) for the passive field (dotted line), active

899: field (dashed line) and velocity field (solid line). The two vertical

900: lines denote the forcing shells. Note

901: that the scaling exponents of the active field and the velocity field

902: coincide.

903: The parameters are $N=35$, $\alpha=2$, $k_0=0.0625$, $\nu=10^{-12}$,

904: $\tilde\nu

905: =10^{-3}$. The forcing is white noise on shells 10,11.}

906: \label{spectra}

907: \end{figure}

908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

909: 

910: In Fig. \ref{spectra} we show the spectra of the passive and active fields

911: respectively, obtained from a direct numerical simulation with the

912: parameters as detailed in the figure legend. This appears like a

913: striking counter-example to the results of the previous section: the

914: two fields have totally different scaling behaviors. The active field

915: has ``standard" scaling exponents $\eta_p$, 

916: defined by $\langle |b_n|^p\rangle \sim k_n^{-\eta_p}$, that coincide

917: with those of the velocity field, defined by

918: $\langle |u_n|^p\rangle \sim k_n^{-\zeta_p}$,

919: and the spectrum decays like a power

920: law in the ``inertial range" which is between the forcing and the

921: dissipative scales. We estimate from the numerics $\eta_2=\zeta_2\approx .67$,

922: $\eta_3=\zeta_3\approx 1.0$ and $\eta_4=\zeta_4\approx 1.33$, 

923: in close correspondence

924: with the Kolmogorov dimensional predictions.  The passive

925: field has exponents, defined similarly by 

926: $\langle |q_n|^p\rangle \sim k_n^{-\beta_p}$,

927: that are with a different sign! Its spectrum is an increasing

928: function of

929: $k_n$ in the inertial range. We measure $\beta_2\approx -1.33$,

930: $\beta_3\approx -2$ and $\beta_4\approx -2.67$. If we assume that the

931: passive field

932: lands on the Statistically Preserved Structures of the passive decaying problem,

933: then it

934: appears that the active field does not do so.

935: 

936: In the rest of this section we will show that this is actually not a

937: counterexample

938: to the proposition that the active field lands on Statistically Preserved

939: Structures of the decaying passive field. It does. What happens here is

940: that,

941: due to the conservation law Eq. (\ref{crosshe}), the amplitude of the

942: leading

943: Statistically Preserved Structure with the negative scaling exponent

944: is exactly zero. The active

945: field then lands on a sub-leading zero mode, which has standard, positive

946: scaling exponent (the positive sign refers to $\B.r$-space representation,

947: as in Eq. (\ref{zeta})). 

948: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

949: \subsection{Analysis of the results}

950: 

951: To gain insight into this interesting situation we note that the

952: analog of Eq.~(\ref{phioft}) describes the dynamics of our active

953: field $b_n$:

954: \begin{equation}

955: b_n(t) = R_{n,n'}(t|0)b_{n'}(t=0)

956: +\int_0^t d\tau R_{n,n_f}(t|\tau)f_{n_f}(\tau)\ , \label{boft}

957: \end{equation}

958: with an obvious re-definition of the present operator $R_{n,n'}$.

959: It is very revealing to examine the time dependence of the two

960: terms on the RHS of this equation. We measure time in units

961: of the eddy turn over time of the forcing shell 10. This is

962: defined as $\tau_{10}\equiv 

963: [k_{10} \sqrt {\langle |u_{10}|^2 \rangle}]^{-1}\approx 3.35 $.

964: We will examine a forced system

965: which began running at $t=-\infty$,  denoting a generic

966: time as $t=0$. In Fig. \ref{twoterms} panel a

967: we show the time-dependence of the first term for 6 values of $n$

968: in the inertial interval. We see that the initial conditions

969: represent, as expected, a 'standard' spectrum in which the

970: amplitude $b_n$ decreases as a function of $n$. As time proceeds,

971: the decaying term cannot recognize its being `active' from being

972: `passive', and it switches rapidly to the Statistically Preserved

973: Structure of the decaying passive field, characterized by a negative

974: exponent. If it were not for the second term on the RHS of

975: Eq. (\ref{boft}), then $b_n$ would have landed on the same

976: solution as $q_n$. What about the second term? In panel b of

977: Fig. \ref{twoterms} we show the $n$ dependence of the

978: term at time $t=3\times 10^{-4}$. We see that also this term agrees,

979: in its $n$ dependence, with the negative exponent of the

980: passive field. Yet, the LHS $b_n(t)$ fluctuates around

981: {\em decreasing} amplitudes as $n$ increases, meaning that

982: the leading (negative) exponent exactly cancels between

983: the two terms on the RHS of Eq. (\ref{boft}). We demonstrate this

984: cancellation in Fig. \ref{cancel}. There we plot the real

985: parts of the initial value term and the integral term

986: at time $t= 0.3$. We see that the two terms cancel each other.

987: The imaginary parts exhibit the same behavior.

988: 

989: Next we need

990: to understand this cancellation from the analysis of the

991: equations of motion. With this analysis we will also show

992: that the solution on which $b_n(t)$ is landing is also

993: a Statistically Preserved Structure of the decaying passive

994: field, albeit with a sub-leading scaling exponent.

995: \subsection{Statistically Preserved Structures of the passive

996: field}

997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

998: \begin{figure}

999: \centering

1000: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig12a.eps}

1001: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig12b.eps}

1002: \caption{Panel a: The fate of the modulus of the initial value term, averaged over

1003: $2,000$  realizations. Shown

1004: are shells 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25 (top to bottom from the left-most

1005: side). 

1006: At time $t=0$ their

1007: relative amplitudes agree with the scaling exponent of the

1008: {\em active} field. As time progresses the decaying field switches

1009: to the relative amplitudes which agree with the scaling exponent

1010: of the {\em passive} field. Panel b: The modulus of four realizations of the integral

1011: as a function of $n$, for time $t=3\times 10^{-4}$ (in unit of

1012: $\tau_{10}$). Note that both terms of the

1013: RHS of Eq. (\ref{boft}) exhibit the same {\em leading} scaling

1014: behavior. This is canceled exactly as is demonstrated in Fig. \ref{cancel}}

1015: \label{twoterms}

1016: \end{figure}

1017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1018: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1019: \begin{figure}

1020: \centering

1021: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{MHDFig13.eps}

1022: \caption{the real part of the initial value term (dashed line) and

1023: integral term (solid line) as a function of $k_n$. This is a demonstration

1024: of the cancellation of the leading order term in favor of the subleading

1025: one. The imaginary parts behave in the same way.}

1026: \label{cancel}

1027: \end{figure}

1028: In the next subsection we will show that the velocity

1029: field attains a scaling solution with $\zeta_3=1$:

1030: \begin{equation}

1031: S_3(k_n)\equiv 

1032: \Im<u_{n-1}u_{n}u_{n+1}^*>_f \sim k_n^{-1} \ .

1033: \label{S3ofk}

1034: \end{equation}

1035: where $\Im$ denotes the imaginary

1036: part. In this section we will assume this, and examine what are the

1037: scaling solutions that agree with the existence of a 2nd order

1038: Statistically Preserved Structure for the passive field.

1039: We are not going to compute the anomalous scaling exponent exactly,

1040: but rather obtain their dimensional estimates. Since we are after a

1041: radically different apparent behavior, small numerical corrections

1042: are not our main concern. With this caveat in mind,

1043: we can calculate the exponent $\beta_3$ characterizing the third order

1044: structure function 

1045: \begin{equation}

1046: P_3(k_n)\equiv \Im \langle q_{n-1}q_n q^*_{n+1}\rangle \sim k_n^{-\beta_3} \ .

1047: \label{P3ofk}

1048: \end{equation}

1049: The condition for the existence of the 2nd order Statistically Preserved

1050: Structure is

1051: \begin{equation}

1052: \frac{d}{dt}\langle |q_n|^2\rangle =0\ , \quad \forall n \ ,

1053: \label{condzero}

1054: \end{equation}

1055: in the inviscid limit. Using Eq.~(\ref{sabraq})

1056: this condition generates a number of third order quantities that need

1057: to be analyzed first. Denote therefore

1058: \begin{eqnarray}

1059: Q_{3,1}(k_n) &\equiv& \Im<u_{n-1}q_{n}q_{n+1}^*>\ , \nonumber\\

1060: Q_{3,2}(k_n) &\equiv& \Im<q_{n-1}u_{n}q_{n+1}^*>\ , \nonumber\\

1061: Q_{3,3}(k_n) &\equiv& \Im<q_{n-1}q_{n}u_{n+1}^*>\  . \label{Qdef}

1062: \end{eqnarray}

1063: In order to construct scaling solutions for these objects, Dimensional

1064: consideration imply that the

1065: fields involved in the averages above have scalings $u_n\propto

1066: \lambda^{- n/3}$ and $q_n \propto \lambda^{-\beta_3 n/3}$. We infer

1067: the expressions

1068: \begin{eqnarray}

1069: Q_{3,1}(k_n)&=&|q_0|^2|u_0|k_n^{-(2\beta_3+1)/3}

1070: \lambda^{-(\beta_3-1)/3} \ ,\nonumber\\

1071: Q_{3,2}(k_n)&=&|q_0|^2|u_0|k_n^{-(2\beta_3+1)/3}\ , \nonumber\\

1072: Q_{3,3}(k_n)&=&|q_0|^2|u_0|k_n^{-(2\beta_3+1)n/3}

1073: \lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3} \ .

1074: \end{eqnarray}

1075: We can thus rewrite

1076: \begin{eqnarray}

1077: Q_{3,1}(k_n) &\equiv& \lambda^{-(\beta_3-1)/3} \tilde Q_3(k_n)\

1078: ,\label{redefQ31}\\

1079: Q_{3,2}(k_n) &\equiv& \tilde Q_3(k_n)\ ,\label{redefQ32}\\

1080: Q_{3,3}(k_n) &\equiv& \lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3} \tilde Q_3(k_n)\

1081: ,\label{redefQ33}

1082: \end{eqnarray}

1083: where $\tilde Q_3(k_n)$ scales like

1084: \begin{equation}

1085: \tilde Q_3(k_n)\equiv \lambda^{-(2\beta_3+1)n/3}\ .

1086: \label{scalingQ3}

1087: \end{equation}

1088: having these definitions in mind we derive, by demanding

1089: Eq.~(\ref{condzero})

1090: and substituting the scaling form of $\tilde Q_3$ Eq. (\ref{scalingQ3}),

1091: the equation

1092: \begin{widetext}

1093: \begin{equation}

1094: \tilde{a}\lambda^{-(2\beta_3-2)/3}

1095: (1 - \lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3})+

1096: \tilde{b}(\lambda^{-(\beta_3-1)/3}-\lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3})

1097: +\tilde{c}\lambda^{(2\beta_3-2)/3}

1098: (\lambda^{-(\beta_3-1)/3}-1) = 0\ .

1099: \label{eqeta2}

1100: \end{equation}

1101: \end{widetext}

1102: This is  a fourth order polynomial in $\lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3}$. The

1103: four roots are

1104: \begin{equation}

1105: \lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3} = \left\{

1106: \begin{array}{l}

1107: 1\ ,\\

1108: \lambda^{-\alpha}\ ,\\

1109: \pm \lambda^{-\alpha/2}\ .

1110: \end{array}\right.

1111: \label{passscal2d}

1112: \end{equation}

1113: Here three of the roots correspond to a priori physical solutions:

1114: \begin{equation}

1115: \beta_3 = \left\{

1116: \begin{array}{l}

1117: 1\ ,\\

1118: 1 - 3\alpha/2\ ,\\

1119: 1 - 3\alpha\ .

1120: \end{array}\right.

1121: \label{solbeta}

1122: \end{equation}

1123: In our simulations with $\alpha=2$ these results are $\beta_3=1$, -2 and -5

1124: respectively. This is in agreement with spectral exponents $\beta_2$

1125: of the order of (neglecting anomalies) $\beta_2=2/3, -4/3, -10/3$.

1126: To know which of these is physical, we need to consider the fluxes

1127: supported by these solutions.

1128: 

1129: The only flux that is relevant for the passive field is the magnetic

1130: helicity. For the case considered here with $\delta>1$ 

1131: it can be conveniently computed at the shell

1132: $M$ by evaluating

1133: \begin{equation}

1134: \Phi^H_M \equiv - \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{n=0}^M

1135: \left<\frac{|q_n|^2}{k_n^\alpha}\right>

1136: \ .\label{hflux}

1137: \end{equation}

1138: Using the equations of motion to evaluate this object we find

1139: \begin{widetext}

1140: \begin{eqnarray}

1141: \Phi^H_M = &-& \delta_m

1142: \Big[ k_{M+1}^{1-\alpha}

1143: \big(\Im<q_{M}u_{M+1}q_{M+2}^*> - \Im<q_{M}q_{M+1}u_{M+2}^*>\big)\nonumber\\

1144: &+& k_M^{1-\alpha}\big(\Im<q_{M-1}u_{M}q_{M+1}^*>

1145: + \Im<u_{M-1}q_{M}q_{M+1}^*>\big)\Big]\ . \label{exphflux}

1146: \end{eqnarray}

1147: \end{widetext}

1148: We can evaluate now the magnetic helicity flux for the three

1149: scaling solutions (\ref{solbeta}). We find

1150: \begin{equation}

1151: \Phi^H_M \propto \left\{

1152: \begin{array}{l}

1153: \lambda^{-\alpha M}\ ,\\

1154: 1\ ,\\

1155: \lambda^{\alpha M} \ .

1156: \end{array}\right.

1157: \label{solpassiveflux}

1158: \end{equation}

1159: We conclude that the third solution is unphysical, since it supports

1160: a flux that diverges with $M$. The first two solutions are allowed.

1161: With $\beta_3=-2$ we get a constant flux; this is the leading

1162: scaling solution, and is indeed realized in the simulations. The

1163: solution $\beta_3=1$ is subleading, it is associated with a decaying

1164: flux, and is asymptotically allowed. It is not observed in the passive

1165: field simulations simply because it is subleading.

1166: 

1167: Our main point will be that the {\em active} field will in its turn

1168: land on the subleading Statistically Preserved Structure

1169: because the additional conservation laws exclude the leading

1170: one. We demonstrate this phenomenon in the next subsection.

1171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1172: \subsection{Why does the active field fall on a subleading zero mode?}

1173: 

1174: If we accept the general philosophy that active fields exhibit

1175: scaling behaviors that are determined by the zero modes of the

1176: auxiliary passive fields, then we should explain here why

1177: in the present case the active field avoids the {\em leading}

1178: zero mode, and appears to land on the sub-leading one. The answer

1179: is hidden of course in the conservation laws, as we expose now.

1180: 

1181: We first repeat the analysis performed in the previous

1182: section to find the consequence of the equation

1183: \begin{equation}

1184: \frac{d}{dt} <|b_n|^2> = 0\ ,

1185: \label{ddtb2}

1186: \end{equation}

1187: or, equivalently,

1188: \begin{equation}

1189: \frac{d}{dt} <|u_n|^2> = 0\ .

1190: \label{ddtu2}

1191: \end{equation}

1192: Using now the definitions

1193: \begin{eqnarray}

1194: B_3(k_n) &=& \Im \langle b_{n-1} b_n b^*_{n+1}\rangle \sim

1195: k_n^{-\eta_3}\nonumber\\

1196: Q_3(k_n)&\equiv&  k_n^{-(2\eta_3+\zeta_3)/3} \ , \

1197: \end{eqnarray}

1198: we obtain an equation that is analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eqeta2}),

1199: \begin{widetext}

1200: \begin{equation}

1201: \tilde{a}\lambda^{1-(2\eta_3+\zeta_3)/3}

1202: (1 - \lambda^{(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3})+

1203: \tilde{b}(\lambda^{-(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3}-\lambda^{(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3})

1204: +\tilde{c}\lambda^{-1+(2\eta_3+\zeta_3)/3}

1205: (\lambda^{-(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3}-1) = 0\ .

1206: \label{eqeta}

1207: \end{equation}

1208: \end{widetext}

1209: This is a fourth degree polynomial for $\lambda^{\eta_3/3}$ if $\zeta_3$

1210: is known. Obviously,

1211: if we simply substituted here $\zeta_3=1$ we would get the same predictions

1212: for $\eta_3$ as obtained for $\beta_3$ in Eq. (\ref{solbeta}). However, we

1213: have

1214: in this case an important additional constraint that is absent in the case

1215: of the passive field, which can be inferred from the additional

1216: conservation equation

1217: \begin{equation}

1218: \frac{d}{dt} \Re<u_n^*b_n> = 0

1219: \label{ddtub}

1220: \end{equation}

1221: Repeating the analysis as above, and introducing a  new object

1222: $A_3(k_n)\equiv k_n^{-(\eta_3+2\zeta_3)}$ yields the two equations

1223: \begin{eqnarray}

1224: &&a\lambda B_3(k_{n+1}) + b B_3(k_n) + c\lambda^{-1}B_3(k_{n-1}) =0\ ,

1225: \label{eqP3}\\

1226: &&a\lambda^{1-(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3} A_3(k_{n+1})+ b A_3(k_n)\nonumber\\

1227: &&\quad + c\lambda^{-1+(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3}A_3(k_{n-1})=0\ ,

1228: \label{eqR3}

1229: \end{eqnarray}

1230: Solving this system together with Eq. (\ref{eqeta}) yields the scaling

1231: exponents

1232: \begin{equation}

1233: \zeta_3,\:\eta_3 = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad}l}1&\\

1234: 1+ \log_{\lambda}(a/c)& \ .

1235: \end{array}

1236: \right.

1237: \label{scalingsol}

1238: \end{equation}

1239: %With our parameters $\log_{\lambda}(a/c)=2$ so the second solution is

1240: %strongly subleading.

1241: It is easy to check that, among the four possible combinations of

1242: this equation, the only solution allowed by Eq. (\ref{eqeta}) is

1243: \begin{equation}

1244: \zeta_3=\eta_3=1\ .

1245: \label{zetaeta}

1246: \end{equation}

1247: We thus conclude that as far as the active field

1248: is considered, the additional conservation law rules out the leading

1249: zero mode of the passive problem, leaving us only with the subleading mode

1250: which is observed in the simulations.

1251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1252: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1253: \label{summary}

1254: In this paper we considered the correspondence between the statistics

1255: of active fields that are advected by a turbulent velocity field,

1256: and the statistics of an auxiliary passive field that is advected

1257: by the same velocity, but does not affect it. The two

1258: examples were akin to turbulent convection and to magneto-hydrodynamics

1259: respectively. In the first example the conserved variables for

1260: the equations of the passive and active fields are the same. For the

1261: second example the active problem exhibits additional conservation laws.

1262: This was shown to be very significant in determining the respective

1263: statistical physics of the two problems.

1264: 

1265: The two examples appear very different in superficial

1266: examination. In the first example the even-order statistics of the

1267: passive and active fields turned out to be the same up to a single

1268: multiplicative factor $\beta$, common to all orders. The forced structure

1269: functions of the active field scale with exactly the same exponents

1270: as the passive field, which in turn are dominated by the leading zero modes

1271: of the decaying problem. We analyzed in detail the source of the

1272: multiplicative factor $\beta$ and showed that it stems from the

1273: additional correlation effects between the forcing and the velocity field

1274: that are absent in the passive case.

1275: Nevertheless these correlation effects do not cause a change in the

1276: scaling exponents. The general lesson that we would propose on the

1277: basis of this example is that whenever there exist a problem in

1278: which the equation of motion of the active field does not satisfy

1279: additional conservation

1280: laws compared to the passive case, the former field

1281: will exhibit structure functions that are dominated by the leading

1282: zero modes of the latter.  This point is also pertinent to the second

1283: example.

1284: Here the active equations possess additional conservation laws,

1285: and indeed the active and passive fields exhibit different scaling

1286: exponents.

1287: Nevertheless we argued that the structure functions of the active field

1288: are still dominated by the zero modes of the passive problem, but

1289: not the leading ones. The additional conservation laws results in

1290: exact cancellations in the contributions of the leading zero modes,

1291: and the active problem lands on the next allowed sub-leading zero mode

1292: of the passive problem.

1293: 

1294: As a generalization, consider then a sufficiently

1295: turbulent velocity field which advects an active field, scalar or

1296: vector, which in its turn is forced by a force having a compact

1297: support in $\B.k$ space. An auxiliary passive field which is advected

1298: by the same velocity field can be employed to find the

1299: zero modes of the operator involved in the passive decay

1300: problem. On the basis of the intuition gained

1301: with the examples presented above, we offer the following tentative

1302: conjecture: the forced structure function of the active field

1303: will exhibit scaling exponents that are the scaling exponents of the

1304: aforementioned 

1305: zero modes. Whenever the conservation laws of the active and passive

1306: problems coincide, these will be the exponents of the leading zero modes.

1307: When the active problem has additional conservation laws, these will be

1308: the next-leading zero modes, as allowed by the conservation laws.

1309: 

1310: Finally, we need to consider the relation of our shell models

1311: to the physical problems and the PDE's that motivate these models. It is

1312: important to test the

1313: conjecture stated here in that context. In light of the above discussion

1314: we expect that much of what has been found here will translate literally

1315: to the continuous problems. After all, the crucial aspects are the linearity

1316: of the advection equation, and the existence of conservation laws. These

1317: are unchanged in the continuous problems. Of course, one can expect

1318: many more numerical difficulties, especially due to the role of angles

1319: in the multi-point correlation functions. Nevertheless, the idea that

1320: the understanding of the anomalous scaling exponent of active fields boils

1321: down to the analysis of eigenfunctions of a linear operator is expected

1322: to hold verbatim.

1323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1324: \acknowledgments

1325: This work has been supported in part by the

1326: Research Grants Council of Hong Kong SAR, China

1327: (CUHK 4119/98P and CUHK 4286/00P), the European Commission

1328: under a TMR grant, by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany, the German

1329: Israeli Foundation, and the Naftali and Anna Backenroth-Bronicki Fund for

1330: Research in Chaos and Complexity. TG thanks the Israeli Council for Higher

1331: Education and the Feinberg 

1332: postdoctoral Fellowships program at the WIS for financial support.

1333: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1334: 

1335: \bibitem{71MY}

1336: A. S. Monin and A. M. Yaglom, {\em Statistical Fluid Mechanics},

1337: (MIT, Cambridge  1971).

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{Zeldovich} Ya.~B.~Zeldovich, A.~A.~Ruzmaikin and

1340: D.~D.~Sokoloff, {\it Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics}

1341: Gordon and Breach Publ. (1983).

1342: 

1343: \bibitem{93Bis}

1344: D. Biskamp, {\em Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics} (Cambridge, Cambridge UK,

1345: 1993)

1346: 

1347: \bibitem{01FGV}

1348: G. Falkovich, K. Gawedzki and M. Vergassola, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 2001,

1349: and references therein.

1350: 

1351: \bibitem{01CV}

1352: A. Celani and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 424 (2001).

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{01ABCPV}

1355: I. Arad, L. Biferale, A. Celani, I. Procaccia and M. Vergassola,

1356: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 164502 (2001).

1357: 

1358: \bibitem{01CGP}

1359: Y. Cohen, T. Gilbert and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 65}, 026314

1360: (2002).

1361: 

1362: 

1363: \bibitem{01CMMV}

1364: A. Celani, T. Matsumoto, A. Mazzino and M. Vergassola,

1365: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 054503 (2002).

1366: 

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{02CCGP}

1369: E. S. C Ching, Y. Cohen, T. Gilbert and I. Procaccia

1370: ``Statistically Preserved Structures and

1371: Anomalous Scaling in Turbulent Active Scalar Advection", submitted to 

1372: Europhys. Lett., arXiv:nlin/CD/0111030.

1373: 

1374: \bibitem{Brand}

1375: A. Brandenburg, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 69}, 605 (1992).

1376: 

1377: \bibitem{98GC}

1378: P. Giuliani and V. Carbone, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 43}, 527 (1998).

1379: 

1380: \bibitem{98LPPPV}

1381: V. S. L'vov, E. Podivilov, A. Pomyalov, I. Procaccia

1382: and D. Vandembroucq, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 58},

1383: 

1384: 

1385: 

1386:  1811 (1998).

1387: \end{thebibliography}

1388: 

1389: \end{document}

1390: 

1391: 

1392: %\begin{widetext}

1393: %\begin{equation}

1394: %\tilde{a}\lambda(1 - \lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3})\tilde Q_3(k_{n+1})

1395: %+

1396: %\tilde{b}(\lambda^{-(\beta_3-1)/3}-\lambda^{(\beta_3-1)/3})\tilde Q_3(k_n)

1397: %+\tilde{c}\lambda^{-1}(\lambda^{-(\beta_3-1)/3}-1)\tilde Q_3(k_{n-1}) = 0\

1398: ,

1399: %\label{eqQ3b}

1400: %\end{equation}

1401: %\end{widetext}

1402: 

1403: 

1404: %\begin{equation}

1405: %\tilde{a}\lambda(1 - \lambda^{(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3})Q_3(k_{n+1})+

1406: %\tilde{b}(\lambda^{-(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3}-\lambda^{(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3})Q_3(k_

1407: n)

1408: %+\tilde{c}\lambda^{-1}(\lambda^{-(\eta_3-\zeta_3)/3}-1)Q_3(k_{n-1}) = 0\ ,

1409: %\label{eqQ3b2}

1410: %\end{equation}

1411: %Substituting the scaling form of $Q_3$ in this

1412: %expression gives 

1413: 

1414: