1: 

2: %\documentclass[prb,twocolumn,floats,aps,showpacs]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \documentclass[pre,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: 

7: 

8: \def\kx{\left( {p k_x \over 2} \right)}

9: \def\ky{\left( {p k_y \over 2} \right)}

10: \def\8{\infty}

11: \def\oh{\frac{1}{2}}

12: \def\ot{\frac{1}{3}}

13: \def\oq{\frac{1}{4}}

14: \def\tt{\frac{2}{3}}

15: \def\ft{\frac{4}{3}}

16: \def\tq{\frac{3}{4}}

17: \def\d{\partial}

18: \def\i{\imath\,}

19: \def\ih{\frac{\imath}{2}\,}

20: \def\undertext#1{\vtop{\hbox{#1}\kern 1pt \hrule}}

21: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

22: \def\lfa{\leftarrow}

23: \def\Ra{\Rightarrow}

24: \def\lra{\longrightarrow}

25: \def\ler{\leftrightarrow}

26: \def\lrb#1{\left(#1\right)}

27: \def\O#1{O\left(#1\right)}

28: \def\VEV#1{\left\langle\,#1\,\right\rangle}

29: \def\tr{\hbox{tr}\,}

30: \def\trb#1{\tr\lrb{#1}}

31: \def\dd#1{\frac{d}{d#1}}

32: \def\dbyd#1#2{\frac{d#1}{d#2}}

33: \def\pp#1{\frac{\partial}{\partial#1}}

34: \def\pbyp#1#2{\frac{\partial#1}{\partial#2}}

35: \def\ff#1{\frac{\delta}{\delta#1}}

36: \def\fbyf#1#2{\frac{\delta#1}{\delta#2}}

37: \def\pd#1{\partial_{#1}}

38: 

39: 

40: 

41: 

42: 

43: 

44: \def\br{\\ \nonumber & &}

45: %%\def\brr{\right. \\ \nonumber & &\left.}

46: %%\def\inv#1{\frac{1}{#1}}

47: 

48: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

49: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

50: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray} & &}

51: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

52: \def\ct#1{\cite{#1}}

53: \def\rf#1{(\ref{#1})}

54: \def\EXP#1{\exp\left(#1\right)}

55: \def\TEXP#1{\hat{T}\exp\left(#1\right)}

56: \def\INT#1#2{\int_{#1}^{#2}}

57: \def\MAT{{\it Mathematica }}

58: \def\LHS{left-hand side }

59: \def\RHS{right-hand side }

60: \def\COM#1#2{\left\lbrack #1\,,\,#2\right\rbrack}

61: \def\AC#1#2{\left\lbrace #1\,,\,#2\right\rbrace}

62: %LOCAL

63: \def \PDF{probability distribution function }

64: \def\t{\tilde}

65: \def\ad{a^\dagger}

66: \def\cH{{\cal H}}

67: \def\Kinp{ \partial^2 \Pi\left(\phi_{i}-\phi_{i-1}\right)}

68: \def\E{{\cal E}}

69: \def\rfs#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

70: \def\Urms {U_{\rm rms}}

71: 

72: 

73: \begin{document}

74: 

75: \title{Burgers Equation Revisited}

76: 

77: \author {V. Gurarie}

78: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Theoretical Physics, Oxford

79: University, 1 Keble Rd, Oxford OX1 1JP, United Kingdom}

80: 

81: \date{14 March 2002}

82: %\date{\today}

83: 

84: 

85: \begin{abstract}

86: This paper studies the 1D pressureless turbulence (the Burgers

87: equation). It shows that reliable numerics in this problem is very

88: easy to produce if one properly discretizes the Burgers equation.

89: The numerics it presents confirms the $7/2$ power law proposed for

90: probability of observing large negative velocity gradients in this

91: problem. It also suggests that the entire probability function for

92: the velocity gradients could be universal, perhaps in some

93: approximate sense. In particular, the probability that the

94: velocity gradient is negative appears to be $p \approx 0.21 \pm

95: 0.01$ irrespective of the details of the random force. Finally, it

96: speculates that the theory initially proposed by Polyakov, with a

97: particular value of the ``anomaly" parameter, may indeed be exact,

98: at least as far as velocity gradients are concerned.

99: \end{abstract}

100: 

101: \pacs{47.27.-i, 05.40.-a, 05.45.-a}

102: 

103: \maketitle

104: 

105: \section{Introduction}

106: 

107: The problem of the randomly driven Burgers equation, or 1D

108: pressureless turbulence, attracted a lot of attention in the

109: literature in the last decade

110: \cite{Yakhot,Polyakov,BMP,GM,Sinai,Frisch,KG,Bec}. Indeed, it is a

111: tantalizing problem. On the one hand, it incorporates many

112: features one would expect from a real 3D turbulent fluid. On the

113: other hand, it is much simpler than the 3D turbulence of the

114: incompressible fluid, usually studied in the framework of the

115: Navier-Stokes equation. Its simplicity prompted some researchers

116: to suggest that it will become the ``Ising model'' of turbulence.

117: Yet many published papers later, we are still far from a complete

118: solution to this problem. In fact, many of the aspects of the

119: Burgers equation remain the subject of an ongoing debate. Several

120: competing methods exist in the literature, each with its own range

121: of applicability, which provide different, sometimes mutually

122: exclusive answers to various aspects of the 1D turbulence.

123: 

124: 

125: The situation could be improved if a way existed to check various

126: statements made about the Burgers equation. Such a check could be

127: provided by numerical simulations. But the numerical simulations

128: in turbulence are hard to conduct, they require large expenditure

129: of resources, and the answers they provide are often too ambiguous

130: to either confirm or disprove a particular theory. The situation

131: in Burgers turbulence seems to be no different. Despite several

132: influential papers on the numerical aspects of Burgers turbulence,

133: those studies failed to rule out completely or confirm any of the

134: competing theories currently on the market. The exception to this

135: seems to be the paper of J. Bec \cite{Bec}, where he confirmed the

136: asymptotics of a certain probability distribution function

137: (discussed below) predicted earlier in Ref. \cite{Sinai}.

138: 

139: 

140: In this paper, I would like to point out that there exists an

141: alternative way to study the Burgers equation numerically. The

142: method involves minimizing the Hopf-Cole functional instead of

143: trying to solve a complicated nonlinear differential equation.

144: That turned out to be extremely easy to do numerically. A ten line

145: program, which can be written in half an hour, produces, after

146: several minutes of computer time, clean graphs of probability

147: distribution functions. With the help of this program, I report

148: confirmation  of some of the existing theories. I also hope that

149: the method, being so simple, can be used by other researchers to

150: do a quick check if their proposed theory indeed does not

151: contradict the numerical experiment.

152: 

153: The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section II I

154: formulate the problem of Burgers turbulence and summarize many of

155: the known facts about it. In section III I show how Burgers

156: equation must be discretized in order to facilitate doing

157: numerics. In section IV I discuss the statistics of the velocity

158: gradients of the Burgers equation using the methods of Lagrangian

159: trajectories. I also discuss the ``anomaly" hypothesis of Polyakov

160: and explain its meaning within the Lagrangian approach. In section

161: V I discuss the numerical simulations, show that they are

162: compatible with the asymptotic results of Refs.~\cite{Sinai,Bec}

163: and show that they are also compatible with the Polyakov

164: hypothesis if the ``anomaly" parameter $\beta$ is chosen to be

165: equal to $3/2$. Finally in the last section VI I also show that

166: the compatibility with the known results on the behavior of pinned

167: charge density waves \cite{AR,Fogler,GC,GC1} also forces the value

168: $\beta=3/2$. I speculate that since the problem of pinned charge

169: density waves and the asymptotics of Refs.~\cite{Sinai,Bec} relate

170: to different properties of Burgers turbulence, there is a chance

171: that the Polyakov's theory with $\beta=3/2$ is indeed exact, at

172: least as far as the calculation of probabilities of velocity

173: gradients is concerned, unless a remarkable and unlikely

174: coincidence is at play here.

175: 

176: \section{Formulation of the Problem}

177: The Burgers turbulence problem can be formulated in just a few lines.

178: Take a pressureless fluid in

179: 1D, introduce its velocity field $u(x,t)$ where $x$ is space and $t$ is time and

180: write down the Navier-Stokes equation

181: \be

182: \label{burgers}

183: \partial_t u+u~\partial_x u - \nu~\partial^2_x u = f(x,t).

184: \ee Here $\nu$ is the viscosity of the fluid which is taken to be

185: very small. $f(x,t)$ is a force acting on the fluid, which is

186: taken to be random, white noise in time, and a smooth function in

187: space \be \VEV{f(x,t) f(x,t')}= \delta(t-t') F(x-x'), \ee where

188: $F(x)$ is a function which is positive at $x=0$ and smoothly goes

189: to zero when $x \gg L$, where $L$ sets the force length scale. As

190: far as boundary conditions are concerned, it is usually assumed

191: that $u$ is either periodic in space (in which case $F$ has to be

192: periodic as well), or the space is infinite and $u \rightarrow 0$

193: at infinity. Note that the center of mass motion decouples in both

194: cases, to give \be \dd{t} \int dx~u =  \int dx~f, \ee which is but

195: the standard Brownian motion. For this reason one usually selects

196: the force $f$ to be a derivative of another function $h(x,t)$,

197: $f=\partial_x h$. With this restriction, the average velocity

198: vanishes $\VEV{u}=0$ and it makes sense to define the {\sl root

199: mean square velocity} as $U_{\rm rms} = \sqrt{\VEV{u^2}}$. It

200: measures the average amplitude of the fluctuation of the velocity

201: field. A basic assumption in the theory of turbulence is that this

202: quantity does not depend on the viscosity $\nu$ as it is taken to

203: zero.  That allows to determine $\Urms$ via simple hydrodynamic

204: scaling to be $ \Urms \propto  (L F(0))^{\frac{1}{3}}$.

205: 

206: 

207: Once the equation \rf{burgers} is written, one would like to calculate various averages and

208: probabilities. A particular popular question focuses on the probability distribution function

209: of the velocity at two different points. Define  $P(\sigma)$ as the

210: probability of  observing a velocity

211: gradient $\sigma=\partial_x u(x)$ in a particular point in space.

212: Similarly $P_d(v,r)$ is the probability of observing a difference in velocities

213: $v=u(x+r)-u(x)$

214: at two points separated by a distance $r$ from each other.

215: These quantities received a lot of attention

216: in the literature, possibly because they are related

217: to the turbulent advection of particles suspended in the fluid, which is a very important

218: topic in real 3D turbulence.

219: 

220: The following is a highly subjective historical overview of the progress made in understanding

221: \rf{burgers}. As always, the choice of highlights is very personal one, and I apologize to the authors

222: whose contributions are not mentioned here.

223: 

224: The first to address the behavior of $P_d(v)$ were V. Yakhot and A. Chekhlov \cite{Yakhot}, who

225: argued that it should not be symmetric under $v \rightarrow -v$. They were also the first

226: to study this function numerically.

227: 

228: Soon thereafter, A. Polyakov \cite{Polyakov} suggested an approach

229: to calculation of these functions. He suggested an equation that

230: $P_d(v)$ should satisfy. The drawback of his approach was that it

231: was not just one equation but a family of equations parametrized

232: by a parameter (referred to as ``$b$-anomaly'') whose value

233: remained undetermined. At about the same time, Bouchaud, Mezard

234: and Parisi \cite{BMP} attacked the problem using replica trick and

235: the Gaussian variational ansatz. The problem with their approach

236: was that it was not well suited to computing quantities such as

237: $P(\sigma)$ and $P_d(v)$.

238: 

239: 

240: 

241: 

242: In subsequent work \cite{GM} of the author with A. Migdal, it was

243: shown that at least the asymptotics of $P(\sigma)$ and $P_d(v)$ at

244: $\sigma, v \rightarrow +\infty$ can be derived carefully in the

245: saddle point approximation. It was shown that \bea \label{RHS}

246: P(\sigma) \propto \exp \left( - \frac{2 \sigma^3}{3  G} \right), \

247: \sigma \gg G^{\frac{1}{3}}\approx {\Urms \over L} \br P_d(v)

248: \propto \exp \left( - \frac{2 v^3}{3 r^3 G} \right), \ v \gg \Urms

249: \eea where $G=-\partial^2_x F(x)|_{x=0}$. The drawback of the

250: saddle point approach was that it allowed to determine the right

251: hand side asymptotics only. But that asymptotics is expected to

252: depend on whether the force $f$ of \rf{burgers} is Gaussian. The

253: asymptotics \rf{RHS} is true only if the random force of the

254: Burgers equation is Gaussian. But it does not have to be. For

255: example, one could take the random force whose strength is always

256: less than a certain value, $|f| < f_{\rm max}$. Then the

257: asymptotics \rf{RHS} would not be expected to hold. But if it is

258: so, then one could legitimately ask if at least some part of the

259: functions $P(v)$ and $P_d$ are universal, that is, they are

260: independent on the details of the random force $f$, except via the

261: force length scale $L$. On top of it, since any random Gaussian

262: force leads to \rfs{RHS}, one could ask if at least for the

263: Gaussian force, the entire functions $P(\sigma)$ and $P_d(v)$ are

264: universal (that is, independent of the force correlation function

265: $F(x)$).

266: 

267: Some time later, an important paper by W. E, K. Khanin, A. Mazel

268: and Y. Sinai \cite{Sinai} came out. It was argued in that paper

269: that the asymptotics of $P(\sigma)$ at large negative $\sigma$ is

270: \be \label{LHS} P(\sigma) \propto {1 \over |\sigma|^{7 \over 2}},

271: \ \sigma \ll - \frac{\Urms}{L}. \ee The arguments leading to

272: Eq.~\rf{LHS} seemed to be well defined and valid independent of

273: the details of the random force setup. Those arguments were later

274: elaborated in a later paper by U. Frisch, J. Bec and B. Villone

275: \cite{Frisch}. In all of these papers, the asymptotics \rfs{RHS}

276: was not disputed.

277: 

278: At the same time, these authors argued that the only universal

279: feature of the \PDF $P(\sigma)$ is its ``left tail'' \rfs{LHS}.

280: The rest of the function was proposed to be nonuniversal,

281: depending on the details of the random force.

282: 

283: These claims were later checked numerically by R. Kraichnan and T.

284: Gotoh \cite{KG}, but they were not able to unambiguously confirm

285: or reject the power law \rf{LHS}. Some time later J. Bec

286: \cite{Bec} did a very thorough numerical analysis of the ``left

287: tail" and concluded that the power law Eq.~\rf{LHS} is indeed

288: correct.

289: 

290: Here I would like to report a numerical confirmation of the tail

291: \rfs{LHS}. However, I would also like to suggest that the left

292: tail is not the only universal feature of the function

293: $P(\sigma)$.

294: 

295: 

296: 

297: \section{Discrete Burgers Equation}

298: 

299: To study the Burgers equation numerically, its space and time have

300: to be discretized. One way to do that would be to write

301: derivatives as differences. That is a very crude scheme, however.

302: Burgers equation allows a much more gentle way of discretizing its

303: time, which is based on the Hopf-Cole transformation. In this

304: section I am going to present the scheme as it is, and show how it

305: produces the Burgers equation in the continuum limit.

306: 

307: Consider the {\sl energy function} $E_i(x)$ where $x$ changes from

308: $0$ to $2 \pi$ and $i$ is the integer index (which will later

309: become time). Now write down the following definition \be

310: \label{KPZ} E_i(x) = \min_{0\le y \le 2 \pi} \left[ 1-\cos

311: \left(x-y \right) +E_{i-1} (y) \right] + h_i(x). \ee Here $h_i$ is

312: a random function, which I take as \be \label{force} h_i(x) = A_i

313: \cos \left( x-\phi_i \right), \ee where $A_i$ is a random variable

314: (for example, random Gaussian with or taking values uniformly

315: distributed from $0$ to some maximum $A_{\rm max}$), and $\phi_i$

316: is a random phase uniformly distributed from $0$ to $2 \pi$. The

317: sign $\min$ in \rfs{KPZ} should be understood as a minimization

318: over $y$ which varies from $0$ to `$2 \pi$ of the expression in

319: the square brackets. \rfs{KPZ} plays the role of a definition of

320: $E_i$ in terms of $E_{i-1}$. As a starting point, one can take

321: $E_0(x)=0$. Finally, the functions $E_i(x)$ will automatically be

322: periodic in $x$.

323: 

324: The equation \rfs{KPZ} is the discrete Burgers equation. To see

325: that, let us take the continuum limit. In the notations of

326: \rf{KPZ}, the continuum limit is achieved when $h_i \ll 1$, $E_i

327: \ll 1$. The minimization condition reads \be \sin(x-y)- \partial_y

328: E_{i-1} (y) = 0. \ee Since $E_i$ is small, one can expand \be

329: \label{lagr} x = y + \partial_y E_{i-1}. \ee Substituting it back

330: to \rf{KPZ} and expanding $E_{i-1}(x+y-x)$ in powers of $y-x$, one

331: finds \be E_i(x) - E_{i-1} (x) + \oh \left( \partial_x E_{i-1}(x)

332: \right)^2 = h_i(x). \ee The final step is replacing the discrete

333: index $i$ with the continuous time $t$, to find \be

334: \partial_t E + \oh \left( \partial_x E \right)^2 = h,

335: \ee

336: which is the so-called KPZ equation. Introducing the velocity $u=\partial_x E$, one gets the

337: Burgers equation

338: \be

339: \label{bur}

340: \partial_t u + u~\partial_x u = \partial_x h,

341: \ee with $\partial_x h$ identified as the force $f$. In this

342: equation, the viscosity term $\nu u_{xx}$ is absent. But it is

343: easy to see that find a global minimum in \rf{KPZ} is equivalent

344: to the infinitesimal viscosity term in \rf{bur}, following, for

345: example, Feigelman \cite{Feigelman}. The derivation below is

346: somewhat technical and is given for completeness only, so it is

347: possible to skip the equations Eqs.~\rf{xx1}-\rf{deri} without

348: losing any essential information.

349: 

350: Introduce an alternative way of writing down \rf{KPZ}

351: \begin{widetext}

352: \be

353: \label{xx1}

354: \exp \left( - E_i(x_i) \right) = \lim_{\nu \rightarrow 0}

355: \int \prod_{j<i} dx_j~\exp \left\{ - \frac{2}{ \nu} \sum_{j\le i} \left[ 1-\cos \left(x_j-x_{j-1}\right)

356:  + h_{j}(x) \right] \right\}.

357: \ee

358: \end{widetext}

359: It is clear that the integral, in the limit of vanishing $\nu$

360: effectively minimizes the expression in the exponential, doing the

361: work which is accomplished by the $\min$ sign in \rf{KPZ}. Passing

362: to the continuum limit, one finds the functional integral

363: \begin{widetext}

364: \begin{equation}

365: \exp \left( -E(y,T) \right) = \lim_{\nu \rightarrow 0} \int {\cal

366: D} x(t) ~\exp \left\{ - \frac{2}{\nu} \int_0^T dt \left[ \oh \dot

367: x^2 + h(x,t) \right] \right\},  \ x(T)=y.

368: \end{equation}

369: \end{widetext}

370: But the right hand side is none other than the propagator of

371: the Schr\"odinger equation, which enables us to conclude that

372: $\exp \left(-E\right)$ satisfies the Schr\"odinger equation and as

373: a consequence, \be \label{deri}

374: \partial_t E + \oh \left(\partial_x E \right)^2 - \nu \partial^2_x E = h,

375: \ \partial_t u + u~\partial_x u - \nu \partial^2_x u = \partial_x

376: h, \ee which concludes the derivation. (In the last line of

377: \rf{deri} I replaced the arguments of the function $E(y,T)$ by $x$

378: and $t$.)

379: 

380: All this suggests that the following steps must be taken to

381: simulate the Burgers equation numerically. First, generate the

382: random ``force'' $h_i(x)$ using \rf{force}. $A_i$ can be taken,

383: for example, uniformly distributed on the interval from $0$ to

384: $A_{\rm max}$. Then solve the relationship \rf{KPZ} recursively to

385: find $E_i(x)$. The actual value of $E_i$ is not important for the

386: numerics of the Burgers equation. What is important is the value

387: of $y$ which minimizes the expression in the square brackets of

388: \rf{KPZ} for each value of $x$. Given the relationship between $x$

389: and $y$, one finds for the Burgers velocity $u_i = \partial_x

390: E_i(x)$ \be \label{burd} u_i(x) = u_{i-1}(y) + \partial_x

391: h_{i}(x). \ee This is the discrete analog of the obvious equation

392: $\dd{t} u(x(t),t) = f(x,t)$ where $\dd{t} x(t)= u(x(t),t)$, the

393: so-called Lagrangian trajectory (see below). Finally, for the

394: velocity gradients $\sigma_i(x) = \partial^2_x E_i (x)$ one finds

395: \be \label{sid} \sigma_i (x) = \cos\left(x-y\right)

396: \frac{\sigma_{i-1}(y)} {\cos \left(x-y \right) + \sigma_{i-1}(y)}

397: + \partial^2_x h_{i}(x), \ee which is the discrete version of the

398: \rfs{Lan} considered below. The relations \rfs{KPZ}, \rfs{burd},

399: and \rfs{sid} are those one has to iterate to solve the Burgers

400: equation numerically. To stay close to the continuum limit in

401: time, one has to take $A_{\rm max} \ll 1$. And finally, to do the

402: minimization in \rf{KPZ} in practice one has to discretize space

403: as well. With 2000 spacial discretization point, reliable data can

404: be accumulated over about 10000 steps in time, which takes about

405: 10 minutes computer time on a Sun workstation. The result of one

406: such calculation, with $A_{\rm max} = 0.01$ is shown on Fig 1.

407: 

408: 

409: \begin{figure}[htbp]

410: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig1.eps}}

411: \caption{A typical plot of $u(x)$ at a fixed time $t$ taken from an actual computer simulation}

412: \end{figure}

413: 

414: The random force chosen according to \rf{force} fixes the function

415: $F$ to be $F(x) \propto \cos (x)$ and the characteristic length

416: scale $L$ is then of the order of the size of the system. If one

417: wants to use a shorter range force, one could take \be

418: \label{force1} h_i(x) = A_i \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\exp \left\{

419: - \frac{\left(x-2 \pi n+\phi_i \right)^2}{L^2} \right\}, \ee or

420: any other similar function, as long as it is periodic in space

421: $x$.

422: 

423: \section {Statistics of the Velocity Gradients}

424: 

425: 

426: The properties of the solution to Burgers equation has been discussed in many publication (see for example

427: \cite{Frisch}).

428: Here I list those which are relevant for the present discussion.

429: 

430: In the Burgers equation, the viscosity $\nu$ is supposed to be infinitesimally small.

431: Yet it cannot be set to zero. The reason for that is, the solution to this equation develop

432: shock waves, or sharp drops in the value of the velocity field. The width of this drops is

433: of the order of $1/\nu$ and they become discontinuities in $u$ when $\nu$ is taken to zero.

434: In the middle of the drop $\nu \partial^2_x u$ has a finite limit as $\nu \rightarrow 0$.

435: 

436: 

437: 

438: To study the gradients of the velocity it is advantageous to

439: introduce the notion of the lagrangian coordinate $x(t)$. It is

440: the point which moves together with the fluid \be \dbyd{x(t)}{t} =

441: u(x(t)). \ee A discrete version of the lagrangian trajectory was

442: given by \rfs{lagr}. Once $x(t)$ reaches a shock wave, it becomes

443: ``trapped'' in it. For the purposes of this paper, it is natural

444: to assume that $x(t)$ ends as soon as it reaches the shock wave

445: (this is precisely what \rfs{lagr} does). Introduce the notion of

446: the gradient of the velocity on a trajectory defined by $x(t)$,

447: \be \label{grad1} \sigma (t) = \partial_x u(x(t),t). \ee As a

448: consequence of the Burgers equation, \be \label{Lan} \dot \sigma +

449: \sigma^2 =

450: \partial_x f(x(t),t). \ee Notice that the $\nu$ term can be

451: neglected since, by construction, $x(t)$ avoids shock waves and

452: terminates once it reaches them.

453: 

454: The equation \rfs{Lan} can be interpreted as a Langevin equation

455: with the random force $g(t)=

456: \partial_x f(x(t),t)$.

457: Before proceeding further, one needs to establish the statistics of $g(t)$. $x(t)$ is correlated

458: with $f$ in a complicated way, and it is not {\sl a priori clear} if those correlations can be neglected.

459: 

460: Fortunately, the discrete Burgers equation discussed in the

461: previous section provides an answer to this question. $g(t)$ is

462: none other than $\partial^2_x h_i(x)$. But $x$ is related to $y$

463: via \rfs{lagr}, and therefore, $x$ knows nothing about the random

464: phase $\phi_i$ included in the definition of $h_i$ in \rfs{force}.

465: Therefore, $g(t)$ is indeed just a white noise random force \be

466: \VEV{g(t) g(t')} =  G~\delta(t-t') \ee where, as before,

467: $G=-\partial^2_x F(x)|_{x=0}\approx(\Urms/L)^3$. Given a Langevin

468: equation \rfs{Lan}, a Fokker-Planck equation can be written down

469: for the propability $P(\sigma)$ \be \pp{\sigma} \left( {G \over 2}

470: \pp{\sigma} + \sigma^2 \right) P = \pbyp{P}{t}. \ee In the present

471: context this equation was first written down in \cite{Bouchaud},

472: but in that paper it was given an interpretation different from

473: the one here. In fact, a slightly more general form of this

474: equation will be useful below. It has the form \be \label{FP}

475: \pp{\sigma} \left( {G \over 2} \pp{\sigma} + \sigma^2 \right) P +

476: \beta P = \pbyp{P}{t} \ee where $\beta$ is an arbitrary parameter.

477: At this stage, $\beta=0$. However, later a version of \rfs{FP}

478: with nonzero $\beta$ will be useful. Notice that the large

479: $\sigma$ asymptotics of $P$ obtained from the \rfs{FP} is

480: \rfs{RHS}, irrespective of the value of $\beta$.

481: 

482: \rfs{Lan} is unstable. As soon as $\sigma$ becomes large negative,

483: it quickly reaches infinity. This process is none other than the

484: formation of a shock wave. A quick estimate of the probability

485: $P(\sigma)$ in this regime is easy to do. Once $\sigma$ is large

486: enough and negative, one can neglect $g(t)$ in \rfs{Lan}

487: completely and solve the equation to find \be \sigma(t) =

488: \frac{1}{t-t_0}, \ t < t_0 \ee The probability can be estimated to

489: be \be \label{naive} P(\sigma) \propto \int

490: dt~\delta(\sigma-\sigma(t)) \propto \frac{1}{\sigma^2}, \ \sigma

491: \ll -\frac{\Urms}{L}. \ee This estimate was used in some

492: publications to conclude that this should be the correct power law

493: in the \PDF of the Burgers equation \rfs{LHS}. However, to say so

494: would be premature.

495: 

496: It is instructive to reproduce the power law \rfs{naive} with the

497: help of the Fokker-Planck equation. To do that, observe that one

498: has to solve this equation with an absorbing boundary conditions

499: at $\sigma \rightarrow -\infty$, corresponding to the trajectories

500: disappearing when shock waves are formed. The standard

501: substitution \be P=\exp\left( - \frac{\sigma^3}{3 G} \right)

502: \Psi(\sigma). \ee leads to the Schr\"odnger equation of a quantum

503: mechanical particle moving in a potential $U(\sigma) = \sigma^4/(2

504: G) - (\beta+1)\sigma$ \be \label{eq1} -\frac{G}{2}

505: \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial \sigma^2} +

506: \left(\frac{\sigma^4}{2 G} - \left( \beta + 1 \right) \sigma

507: \right) \Psi = - \pbyp{\Psi}{t}. \ee The solution to this equation

508: reads \be \Psi(\sigma) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} C_n \exp \left( - E_n

509: t \right) \Psi_n(\sigma), \ee where $C_n$ are arbitrary

510: coefficients, $E_n$ are the eigenstates, and $\Psi_n$ are the

511: eigenfunctions of the Schr\"odinger equation satisfying \be

512: -\frac{G}{2} \frac{\partial^2 \Psi_n}{\partial \sigma^2} +

513: \left(\frac{\sigma^4}{2 G} - \left( \beta+1 \right) \sigma \right)

514: \Psi_n = E_n \Psi_n. \ee At large times $t \gg (E_1-E_0)^{-1}$,

515: only the ground state survives

516: \begin{eqnarray}

517: \label{eq2}&  P(\sigma,t) \propto \exp \left( - E_0 t \right)

518: P_0(\sigma), \ t \gg \left(E_1-E_0\right)^{-1}, \cr & P_0(\sigma)

519: = \exp\left( - \frac{\sigma^3}{3 G} \right) \Psi_0 (\sigma).

520: \end{eqnarray} A detailed analysis of Eqs.~\rf{eq1}-\rf{eq2} at arbitrary

521: $\beta$ can be found in the paper by S. Boldyrev \cite{Boldyrev}.

522: In the case of interest, $\beta=0$. Ref. \cite{Boldyrev} shows

523: that in this case $E_0>0$, and it confirms the asymptotics

524: \rfs{naive} for $P_0(\sigma)$. The asymptotics at large positive

525: $\sigma$ coincides with \rfs{RHS}. The fact that $E_0>0$ is not

526: surprising. It means that the total probability $\int d

527: \sigma~P(\sigma)$ dicreases with time. This is due to elimination

528: of trajectories which ended on shock waves.

529: 

530: However, this cannot be the correct probability of observing a velocity gradient $\sigma$ at a given

531: point in space. Indeed, introduce the density of trajectories $\rho(x,t)$. It satisfies

532: the continuity equation

533: \be

534: \partial_t \rho + \partial_x \left(u \rho \right) = 0.

535: \ee In particular, the density around the given Lagrangian

536: trajectory $x(t)$ is given by $\rho_L(t) = \rho(x(t),t)$ and it

537: satisfies \be \dd{t} \rho_L + \sigma \rho_L = 0 \ee It is clear

538: that the probability that a particular trajectory happens to go

539: through an observation point where a velocity gradient is measured

540: is inversely proportional to the density of trajectories at this

541: point. Thus a more physically relevant probability distribution

542: function is defined as \be P(\sigma) = \VEV{ \frac{1}{\rho_L}

543: ~\delta (\sigma-\sigma(t))}. \ee This function satisfies a

544: Fokker-Planck equation \rfs{FP}, but with $\beta=1$. In this case,

545: it is possible to show that $E_0<0$ and \be P(\sigma) \propto

546: \frac{1}{|\sigma|^3}, \ \sigma \ll -\frac{\Urms}{L}. \ee This

547: asymptotics was proposed in the paper \cite{KG}. But it cannot be

548: the correct asymptotics either. Indeed, while the above analysis

549: correctly removes the trajectories which end at the points where a

550: new shock wave is formed, it fails to take into account those

551: which fall into ``mature'' shock waves, the ones which formed in

552: the past. That is why $E_0<0$ and the probability grows with time.

553: That comes from overcounting the trajectories.

554: 

555: 

556: Unfortunately, the \rfs{Lan} does not seem to contain enough

557: information to determine if there is a shock wave nearby. If that

558: is indeed the case, then the full Burgers equation \rfs{burgers}

559: has to be solved. That is the core of the problem of Burgers

560: turbulence, and the reason the solution to it seems so close and

561: yet so hard to get. The full Burgers equation \rfs{burgers} leads

562: to a full fledged 2D quantum field theory (via Martin-Siggia-Rose

563: formalism, for example). That theory is presumably very hard, if

564: not impossible, to solve. The ``reduced'' equation \rfs{Lan}, on

565: the other hand, leads to a quantum mechanics encoded in \rfs{eq1}.

566: The solution to quantum mechanics problems are clearly within

567: reach. The question is, therefore, if it is possible to extract

568: all the relevant information about the Burgers equation from the

569: Lagrangian equation \rfs{Lan}. At this stage of the present

570: analysis, it does not seem possible.

571: 

572: To move further, I will make the following leap of faith. The

573: equation \rfs{FP} was studied in Ref.~\cite{Boldyrev} for

574: arbitrary $\beta$. It was found that while the large positive

575: $\sigma$ asymptotics of $P$ is always given by \rfs{RHS}, the

576: other asymptotics is given by \be P(\sigma) \propto  \frac{1}

577: {\sigma^{\beta+2}}, \ \sigma \ll -\frac{\Urms}{L}. \ee On the

578: other hand, it is known from the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Sinai} and

579: \cite{Frisch} that the correct power of this asymptotics is $7/2$.

580: To match this asymptotics, I choose $\beta=3/2$. Then I propose to

581: solve the equation \rfs{FP} and compare what it gives with the

582: numerics. The results of the comparison is shown in next section.

583: 

584: The equation \rfs{FP} with an arbitrary $\beta$ was proposed in

585: \cite{Polyakov} (but for $P_d(v)$ as opposed to $P(\sigma)$) where

586: $\beta$ was referred to as $b$-anomaly. But whether the present

587: discussion has anything to do with the methods of

588: Ref.~\cite{Polyakov} is unclear. To derive \rfs{FP} with

589: $\beta=3/2$, one needs to show that the rate at which the

590: trajectories fall into mature shock waves is proportional to the

591: extra $\oh \sigma P$ term generated in the Fokker-Planck equation

592: \rfs{FP}. How to do that is not known to me. Next, the \rfs{FP}

593: cannot be exact. After all, it clearly breaks down even if the

594: force is not Gaussian. However, it may be correct in some mean

595: field sense, for moderate values of $\sigma$. Finally, I'd like to

596: note that for this value of $\beta$, $E_0<0$ and the probability

597: still grows with time. That must be because this description gives

598: the relative probability of observing one value of $\sigma$ over

599: another, not the absolute probability, and the overall

600: normalization must be enforced by $P \rightarrow P/\Pi$ where

601: $\Pi=\int d\sigma~P(\sigma)$.

602: 

603: 

604: \section{Numerical Simulations}

605: With the setup descibed in the preceeding sections, it is very

606: easy to calculate $P(\sigma)$ numerically. Unlike some of the

607: previous work on this subject, I did not try to compute

608: $P(\sigma)$ from the data. Instead, I computed the integrated

609: probability density \be N(\sigma) = \int_{-\infty}^{\sigma}

610: d\mu~P(\mu). \ee Obviously its left tail is expected to go as

611: $N(\sigma) \propto 1/|\sigma|^{\frac{5}{2}}$. To plot it

612: numerically, it is enough to collect the data into an array, to

613: sort it in the increasing order, and plot the position of an array

614: entry as a function of its value. Fig 2. depicts $N(\sigma)$ in

615: the case when the force was chosen to be as in \rfs{force},

616: $A_{\rm max}=0.01$, and $\Urms \approx 0.02$.

617: \begin{figure}[htbp]

618: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig2a.eps}}

619: \caption{The integrated probability density $N(\sigma)$ as a function of $\sigma$}

620: \end{figure}

621: 

622: Fig 3. shows the left tail in

623: the log-log format. For comparison, a straight line with the slope $-5/2$ is plotted.

624: \begin{figure}[htbp]

625: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig3a.eps}}

626: \caption{The plot of $\log N$ as a function of $\log(-\sigma)$ for negative $\sigma$. The straight

627: line has a slope of $-2.5$}

628: \end{figure}

629: The agreement is striking. One could object that the power law in

630: this graph does not extend over a sufficiently long range of

631: $\sigma$. To extend it further, one needs to do numerics at weaker

632: force for longer periods of time (to keep close to the continuum

633: limit even at large velocity fluctuations). It was not the task of

634: the present work to do large scale numerical simulations, and I

635: believe the agreement I have here is good enough (especially in

636: view of the work reported in Ref.~\cite{Bec}).

637: 

638: Fig 4. shows the same probability function, but plotted together

639: with the (numerical) solution to the equation \rfs{FP} with

640: $\beta$ chosen to be $\beta=3/2$.

641: \begin{figure}[htbp]

642: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3in \epsfbox{fig4a.eps}}

643: \caption{$N(\sigma)$ taken from the numerics (upper curve) and

644: extracted from the solution to the \rfs{FP} with $\beta=3/2$.}

645: \end{figure}

646: To arrive at this picture, one parameter - the units of measure of

647: $\sigma$ - had to be adjusted to make the graphs overlap as much

648: as possible. The agreement is not perfect. Yet the curves are

649: close enough to suggest that perhaps it is not coincidential

650: either. One interesting number is the probability $p$ that the

651: velocity gradient is negative. It is especially interesting,

652: because it is independent of the adjustments of the units of

653: $\sigma$. Numerically $p\approx 0.21\pm 0.01$. The solution to the

654: \rfs{FP} gives about $0.18$. According to some claims in the

655: literature, this number is not universal. However, the value of

656: $p$ is reproducible whether I do the numerics with the long ranged

657: force \rfs{force} or shorter range force \rfs{force1} with various

658: values of $L$. So numerically $p$ appears to be universal, or

659: perhaps approximately universal.

660: 

661: To conclude, the numerical data does not confirm that the \rfs{FP}

662: with the parameter $\beta=3/2$ is the {\sl exact} solution to the

663: problem. But it may be an {\sl approximate}, perhaps in some mean

664: field sense, solution to the problem, which reproduces the actual

665: probability density rather close. I believe this question deserves

666: further investigations.

667: 

668: \section{Pinned Charge Density Waves}

669: 

670: In the papers of the author with J.T. Chalker \cite{GC,GC1} a

671: remarkable correspondence was established between the randomly

672: driven Burgers equation and the physics of pinned charge density

673: waves. It would go beyond this paper to discuss charge density

674: waves, but mathematically the correspondence can be formulated in

675: the following way. Consider the functional

676: \begin{equation}

677: \label{PCDW} {\cal E}[x(t)] = \int_0^T dt \left[ \oh \dot x^2 +

678: h(x,t) \right],

679: \end{equation}

680: where $h(x,t)$ is the same random function as the one in

681: \rfs{xx1}. Let us find a function $x_0(t)$ which, when substituted

682: for $x(t)$ in \rfs{PCDW}, gives an absolute minimum for the

683: functional ${\cal E}$. Obviously it satisfies the minimization

684: equation

685: \begin{equation}

686: -{d^2 x_0\over dt^2} + \left.\pbyp{h(x,t)}{x}\right|_{x=x_0(t)} =

687: 0.

688: \end{equation}

689: 

690: Now consider the energy cost of $x(t)$ deviating from $x_0(t)$.

691: Writing $x(t) \approx x_0(t) + \psi(t)$ we find the equation for

692: the normal modes of oscillations about the absolute minimum, given

693: by

694: \begin{equation}

695: \left[ -{d^2  \over dt^2}+ \left. {\partial^2 h(x,t) \over \d x^2}

696: \right|_{x=x_0(t)} \right]\psi = \omega^2 \psi.

697: \end{equation}

698: With the problem thus set up, one needs to calculate the average

699: number of modes with frequencies less than a given frequency

700: $\omega$. Such a function is denoted as $N(\omega)$.

701: 

702: This problem, which was first formulated in the context of charge

703: density waves in Ref.~\cite{FL}, received a substantial amount of

704: attention in the literature (see

705: Refs.~\cite{Feigelman,Gia,AR,Fogler,GC,GC1}. After initial

706: disagreements, a consensus was built which gave for the function

707: $N(\omega)$ the value

708: \begin{equation}

709: \label{IDS} N(\omega) \propto \omega^5,

710: \end{equation}

711: for sufficiently small $\omega$. This was first proposed in

712: Ref.~\cite{AR} and then the derivation was improved in subsequent

713: publications until Ref.~\cite{GC} derived \rfs{IDS} in a

714: systematic way.

715: 

716: One of the results of Refs.~\cite{GC,GC1} relates the calculation

717: of $N(\omega)$ to the following specific question in Burgers

718: turbulence. Consider a Burgers fluid \rfs{burgers} driven by a

719: random force $f(x,t)=\partial_x h(x,t)$. Consider a Lagrangian

720: trajectory $x_0(t)$ which moves with a fluid and never gets

721: absorbed by a shock wave for times $t<T$. Consider a velocity

722: gradient $\sigma(t)$ defined in \rfs{grad1}. Let us find time

723: intervals $t_1 < t < t_2$ such that $\sigma(t)<0$ within those

724: intervals. Now let us calculate the probability that

725: \begin{equation}

726: \label{cond1} \int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt~\sigma(t) < \log(\omega),

727: \end{equation}

728: for some small value of $\omega$. Then the function $N(\omega)$ of

729: the charge density wave problem coincides with this probability.

730: 

731: Notice that knowing the tails of the probability distribution

732: $P(\sigma)$ would not help calculating $N(\omega)$. This is

733: because the typical functions $\sigma(t)$ which satisfy

734: \rfs{cond1} are not those for which $\sigma$ is very large

735: negative, but rather moderate negative $\sigma(t)$ which however

736: persist over long time intervals. Therefore, the results of W. E

737: {\sl at al} \cite{Sinai} are useless if we were to calculate

738: $N(\omega)$ with the help of \rfs{cond1}.

739: 

740: Let us however use the methods of this paper, in particular

741: \rfs{eq1}, to calculate $N(\omega)$. To do so, we need to write

742: down a Feynman path integral formalism which corresponds to

743: \rfs{eq1} and then use the Lagrange multiplier method described in

744: Ref.~\cite{GC1}, section VI C, subsection 1, corrected however for

745: the presence of a parameter $\beta$ in \rfs{eq1}. Then we find

746: \begin{equation}

747: N(\omega) \propto \omega^{2 \beta+2}.

748: \end{equation}

749: Now we know the exact answer to the problem, \rfs{IDS}. If the

750: methods described in this paper were to reproduce the exact

751: answer, we have to choose $\beta=3/2$. However, {\sl this is the

752: same value of $\beta$ required to reproduce the asymptotics of W.

753: E {\sl et al}!}

754: 

755: Two possible explanations of this are possible. First is, perhaps

756: the \rfs{eq1} with $\beta=3/2$ indeed reproduces the right

757: asymptotics of W. E {\sl et al} and for some reason also

758: reproduces the function $N(\omega)$ correctly, but this equation

759: is still generally not correct and the probability distribution

760: derived with its help and shown on Fig. 4 is not correct either.

761: Second is, the \rfs{eq1} is indeed correct and gives the correct

762: solution to the Burgers problem.

763: 

764: The first explanation seems far fetched, as a remarkable

765: coincidence must be at play to give rise to it. The second

766: explanation sounds much more likely. And yet, no derivation of

767: \rfs{eq1} is known at this point.

768: 

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: 

773: 

774: \section {Conclusion}

775: In this paper, I demonstrate that it is easy to obtain reliable

776: numerical data on the behavior of the 1D Burgers equation. I show

777: that the data confirms the $7/2$ tail of the probability

778: distribution suggested in the literature. The data also suggests

779: that the entire probability distribution function could be

780: universal, determined by the solution to the equation \rfs{FP}

781: with the ``anomaly'' parameter $\beta=3/2$. I also discuss that it

782: is possible to reproduce the known solution to the pinned charge

783: density wave problem by applying the techniques discussed here and

784: choosing $\beta=3/2$, which gives extra weight to these methods.

785: 

786: \section{Acknowledgements}

787: I am grateful to J.T. Chalker for many discussions. This paper is

788: based on the results obtained in part in the course of work on

789: paper \cite{GC}. The work presented here was supported in part by

790: EPSRC through its Advanced Research Fellowship programme.

791: 

792: 

793: \begin{thebibliography}{1}

794: \bibitem{Yakhot}

795: A. Chekhlov, V. Yakhot, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 51}, R2739 (1995); Phys. Rev. E{\bf 52}, 5681 (1995)

796: 

797: \bibitem{Polyakov}

798: A. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 52}, 6183 (1995)

799: 

800: \bibitem{BMP}

801: J.P. Bouchaud, M. Mezard, G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 54}, 3656 (1995)

802: 

803: \bibitem{GM}

804: V. Gurarie, A. Migdal, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 54}, 4908 (1996)

805: 

806: \bibitem{Sinai}

807: W. E, K. Khanin, A. Mazel, and Y. Sinai, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

808: 78}, 1904 (1997)

809: 

810: \bibitem{Frisch}

811: U. Frisch, J. Bec, B. Villone, Physica D vol. 152-153, 620 (2001)

812: 

813: \bibitem{KG}

814: T. Gotoh, R. Kraichnan, Phys. Fluids {\bf 10}, 2859 (1998)

815: 

816: \bibitem{Bec}

817: J. Bec, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 104501, (2001)

818: 

819: \bibitem{Feigelman}

820: M. Feigelman, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 52}, 555 (1980)

821: 

822: \bibitem{Bouchaud}

823: J.P. Bouchaud, M. Mezard, Phys. Rev. E{\bf 54}, 5116 (1996)

824: 

825: \bibitem{Boldyrev}

826: S. Boldyrev, hep-th/9707255

827: 

828: \bibitem{GC}

829: 

830: V. Gurarie, J.T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 136801 (2002)

831: 

832: \bibitem{GC1} V. Gurarie, J.T. Chalker, cond-mat/0305445,

833: submitted to Phys. Rev. B

834: 

835: \bibitem{FL} H. Fukuyama and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 17}, 535 (1978)

836: 

837: 

838: \bibitem{Gia} T. Giamarchi and H.J. Shultz, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 325

839: (1988)

840: 

841: \bibitem{AR} I. L. Aleiner and I. M. Ruzin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72},

842: 1056 (1994)

843: 

844: \bibitem{Fogler} M. Fogler, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 186402

845: (2002)

846: 

847: \end{thebibliography}

848: \end{document}

849: