1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage{citesort}

6: \usepackage{psfrag}

7: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}

8: %\setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}

9: %\setlength{\textheight}{22cm}

10: %\setlength{\Omega_ddsidemargin}{1cm}

11: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0cm}

12: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}

13: \begin{document}

14: %\bibliographystyle{prsty}

15: \def\LL  {\Lambda ^{\!\!\scriptscriptstyle-1}}

16: \newcommand{\B}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

17: \newcommand{\C}[1]{\mathcal #1}

18: \newcommand{\rb}{Rayleigh-B\'enard }

19: \newcommand{\Br}{\B{r}}

20: \def\Obr{\overline{\Br}}

21: \newcommand{\KO}{\hat{\mathcal{K}}}

22: \newcommand{\KM}{{\Bbb K}}

23: \newcommand{\PM}{{\Bbb P}}

24: \newcommand{\MM}{{\Bbb M}}

25: \newcommand{\UM}{{\Bbb U}}

26: \newcommand{\NM}{{\Bbb N}}

27: \newcommand{\VecII}[2]{\left( \begin{array}{c} #1 \\ #2 \end{array} \right)}

28: \newcommand{\MatII}[4]{\left( \begin{array}{cc} #1 & #2 \\

29:                                                 #3 & #4 \end{array}\right)}

30: \newcommand{\BR}{\B{R}}

31: \newcommand{\FT}{{\hat F}}

32: \newcommand{\BB}{\B{B}}

33: \newcommand{\Bx}{\B{x}}

34: \newcommand{\By}{\B{y}}

35: \newcommand{\Bk}{\B{k}}

36: \newcommand{\Bq}{\B{q}}

37: \newcommand{\Bp}{\B{p}}

38: \newcommand{\f}{\B{f}}

39: \renewcommand{\v}{\B{v}}

40: \newcommand{\Bv}{\B{v}}

41: \newcommand{\Bu}{\B{u}}

42: \newcommand{\Bt}{\B{t}}

43: \newcommand{\Bn}{\B{n}}

44: \newcommand{\Be}{\B{e}}

45: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

46: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

47: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

48: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

49: \renewcommand{\k}{{\bf k}}

50: \newcommand{\x}{{\bf x}}

51: \renewcommand{\r}{{\bf r}}

52: \def\Or {\overline{r}}

53: \def\dv{{\delta_r v}}

54: \def\cP{{\mathcal P}}

55: \def\cT{{\mathcal T}}

56: \def\cS{{\mathcal S}}

57: \def\cC{{\mathcal C}}

58: \def\Btensor{ B_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1 \ldots \alpha_{n}} }

59: \def\Ctensor #1#2{ \delta^{\alpha_{#1}\alpha_{#2}}

60: B_{n-2,jm}^{ \stackrel{ \mbox{no } #1 ,#2} {

61: \overbrace{_{\alpha_1 \ldots \alpha_{n}} } }}}

62: \renewcommand{\a}{\alpha}

63: \renewcommand{\e}{\epsilon}

64: \newcommand{\eb}{\bar \epsilon}

65: \renewcommand{\b}{\beta}

66: \renewcommand{\l}{\ell}

67: \newcommand{\lp}{\left(}

68: \newcommand{\rp}{\right)}

69: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

70: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

71: \newcommand{\ut}{\underline{\theta}} \newcommand{\uu}{\underline{u}}

72: \newcommand{\ud}{\underline{\Delta}} \newcommand{\PO}{\hat{\mathcal{P}}}

73: \newcommand{\OO}{\hat{\mathcal{O}}}

74: \newcommand{\LM}{{\Bbb M}}

75: \newcommand{\OM}{{\Bbb O}}

76: \newcommand{\PRO}{\hat{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathrm{R}}}

77: \newcommand{\PLO}{\hat{\mathcal{P}}_{\mathrm{L}}}

78: \newcommand{\Eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

79: \newcommand{\Fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

80: \newcommand{\EqDef}{\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}}

81: \newcommand{\AO}{\mathcal{A}}

82: \newcommand{\BO}{\mathcal{B}}

83: \newcommand{\CO}{\mathcal{O}}

84: \newcommand{\DO}{\mathcal{D}}

85: \newcommand{\sepBR}[3]{\begin{picture}(9,1)

86:    \put(#2,#3){\line(1,0){#1}\line(0,1){.25}}\end{picture}}

87: \newcommand{\sepTL}[3]{\begin{picture}(9,1)

88:    \put(#2,#3){\line(0,-1){0.25}}

89:    \put{#2,#3}{\line(1,0){#1}}\end{picture}}

90: \renewcommand{\S}{{\mathcal S}}

91: \newcommand{\Even}{{\mbox{\tiny Even}}}

92: \newcommand{\unitr}{{\mbox{\boldmath$\hat r$}}}

93: \newcommand{\unitR}{{\mbox{\boldmath$\hat R$}}}

94: \def\unitz{{\mbox{\boldmath$\hat z$}}}

95: \newcommand{\SO}{$SO(3)$}

96: \begin{frontmatter}

97: \title{Anisotropy in Turbulent Flows  and in Turbulent Transport}

98:  \author{Luca Biferale}

99: \address{Dept of Physics and INFM, University of Rome ``Tor

100: Vergata'', Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma, Italy}

101:  \author{Itamar Procaccia}

102: \address{Dept. of Chemical Physics, The Weizmann Institute of Science,

103: Rehovot 76100, Israel}

104: 

105: \begin{abstract}

106: The problem of anisotropy and its effects on the statistical theory of

107: high Reynolds-number (Re) turbulence (and turbulent transport) is

108: intimately related and intermingled with the problem of the

109: universality of the (anomalous) scaling exponents of structure

110: functions. Both problems had seen tremendous progress in the last five

111: years. In this review we present a detailed description of the new

112: tools that allow effective data analysis and systematic theoretical

113: studies such as to separate isotropic from anisotropic aspects of

114: turbulent statistical fluctuations.  Employing the invariance of the

115: equations of fluid mechanics to all rotations, we show how to

116: decompose the (tensorial) statistical objects in terms of the

117: irreducible representation of the SO($d$) symmetry group (with $d$

118: being the dimension, $d=2$ or 3). This device allows a discussion of

119: the scaling properties of the statistical objects in well defined

120: sectors of the symmetry group, each of which is determined by the

121: ``angular momenta" sector numbers $(j,m)$.  For the case of turbulent

122: advection of passive scalar or vector fields, this decomposition

123: allows rigorous statements to be made: (i) the scaling exponents are

124: universal, (ii) the isotropic scaling exponents are always leading,

125: (iii) the anisotropic scaling exponents form a discrete spectrum which

126: is strictly increasing as a function of $j$. This emerging picture

127: offers a complete understanding of the decay of anisotropy upon going

128: to smaller and smaller scales. Next we explain how to apply the SO(3)

129: decomposition to the statistical Navier-Stokes theory. We show how to

130: extract information about the scaling behavior in the isotropic

131: sector.  Doing so furnishes a systematic way to assess the

132: universality of the scaling exponents in this sector, clarifying the

133: anisotropic origin of the many measurements that claimed the

134: opposite. A systematic analysis of Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) of the

135: Navier-Stokes equations and of experiments provides a strong support

136: to the proposition that also for the non-linear problem there

137: exists foliation of the statistical theory into sectors of the

138: symmetry group. The exponents appear universal in each sector, and

139: again strictly increasing as a function of $j$. An approximate

140: calculation of the anisotropic exponents based on a closure theory is

141: reviewed. The conflicting experimental measurements on the decay of

142: anisotropy are explained and systematized, showing agreement with the

143: theory presented here.

144: \end{abstract}

145: \begin{keyword} Fully Developed Turbulence, Anisotropic Turbulence,

146: Turbulent  Transport, SO(3) Decomposition, Intermittency, Universality of

147: Anomalous Exponents, Analysis of Turbulent data.

148: \PACS 47.27.Ak, 47.10+g, 47.27.Eq, 05.40-a, 47.27-i, 47.27.Nz, 47.27.Jv,

149:  47.27.Gs

150: \end{keyword}

151: \end{frontmatter}

152: \tableofcontents

153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

154: %%

155: %

156: % Chapter 1 - Introduction

157: %

158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

159: %%

160: \section{Introduction}

161: \label{chap:introduction}

162: The statistical theory of fluid turbulence is concerned with

163: correlation functions of the turbulent velocity vector field $\B

164: u(\B x,t)$ where $\B x$ is the spatial position and $t$ the time

165: \cite{my75}. Since the velocity field is a vector, multi-point and

166: multi-time correlation functions are in general tensor functions

167: of the vector positions and the scalar times. Naturally such

168: functions have rather complicated forms which are difficult to

169: measure and to compute. Consequently, almost from its very

170: beginning, the statistical theory of turbulence was

171: discussed in the context of an isotropic and homogeneous model.

172: The notion of isotropic turbulence was first introduced by

173: G.~I.~Taylor in 1935 \cite{tay35}. It refers to a turbulent

174: flow, in which the statistical averages of every function of the

175: velocity field and its derivatives with respect to a particular

176: frame of axes is invariant to any rotation in the axes. This is a

177: very effective mathematical simplification which, if properly

178: used, can drastically reduce the mathematical complexity of the

179: theory. For this reason, it was very soon adopted by others, such

180: as T.~D.~K\'arm\'an and L.~Howarth \cite{kar38} who derived the

181: K\'arm\'an-Howarth equation (see below), and A.~N.~Kolmogorov

182: \cite{kol41,fri95} who derived the 4/5 law (re-derived

183: below). In fact, most of the theoretical work in turbulence in the

184: past sixty years was limited to the isotropic model.

185: 

186: Experimentally, however, we know that isotropy holds only as an

187: approximation with a varying degree of justification. In all realistic

188: flows there always exists some anisotropy at all scales; the

189: statistical properties of the velocity field are effected by the

190: geometry of the boundaries or the driving mechanism, which are never

191: rotationally invariant

192: \cite{hin75,she00,lum67,sad94,kur00,lum65,tav81,kur00a,fer00}. Therefore, a

193: realistic description of

194: turbulence cannot be purely isotropic and must contain some

195: anisotropic elements. Yet the problem is that once we take anisotropy

196: into account, we face a drastic increase in the complexity of the

197: theory. The number of variables that is needed to describe the common

198: statistical quantities, such as correlation functions and structure

199: functions of the velocity field, increases a lot. For example, under

200: shear there is a characteristic length scale, which can be constructed from

201: the

202: typical velocity and the typical shear \cite{lum67,bif02}.

203: This length has to be

204: considered in order to distinguish those scales where the turbulent

205: evolution is mainly dominated by the inertial effects of fluid

206: mechanics or by the direct input of energy due to the anisotropic

207: shear \cite{ben02,cas00,tos99,tos00}. Similarly,

208: all dimensional estimates acquire a significant

209: degree of ambiguity because of the proliferation of different

210: dimensional quantities related to the parameters of anisotropy. As a

211: consequence of these inherent difficulties the existing anisotropic

212: effects were simply ignored in many of the experimental and

213: simulational studies of statistical turbulence.  This attitude gave

214: rise to ambiguous assessments of important fundamental issues like the

215: universality of the scaling exponents in turbulence.

216: 

217: The standard justification for ignoring anisotropic effects is

218: that the basic phenomenology, since the pioneering works of

219: Kolmogorov \cite{kol41,fri95}, predicts  a {\it

220: recovery of isotropy} at sufficiently small scales of the

221: turbulent flows. Nevertheless, both recent experimental works and

222: theoretical analysis suggested that the actual rate of recovery

223: is much slower than predicted by simple dimensional analysis,

224: pointing out even the possibility that some anisotropic

225: correlation function, based on velocity gradients, stays $O(1)$

226: for any Re \cite{pum95,pum96,she00,sch02}. In order

227: to settle this kind of problems, theoretically or experimentally,

228: it is crucial to possess systematic tools to disentangle

229: isotropic from anisotropic fluctuations and to distinguish among

230: different kinds of anisotropic fluctuations. Thus a central

231: challenge in the theory of anisotropy in turbulence is

232: the construction of an efficient mathematical language to

233: describe it.  Without a proper description, the complexities of

234: the formalism can soon obscure the physical content of the

235: processes that we wish to study.

236: 

237: The problem of anisotropy is not disconnected from the other

238: fundamental problem which has to do with the nature of

239: universality in turbulence. By universality, we mean the tendency

240: of different turbulent systems to show the same small-scales

241: statistical behavior when the measurements are done far away from

242: the boundaries. Consider, for example, the longitudinal two-point

243: structure function

244: \begin{equation}

245:   S^{(2)}(\Br) \equiv \left< \delta u_{\l}^2(\Bx, \Br,t) \right> \ , \quad

246:   \delta u_{\l}(\Bx,\Br,t) \equiv

247:   \hat{\Br}\cdot\big[\B{u}(\Bx+\Br,t)-\B{u}(\Bx,t)\big] \ ,

248: \label{defS2long}

249: \end{equation}

250: with $\hat{\Br}$ being the unit vector in the direction of $\Br$, and

251: $\left< \cdot \right>$ stands for an appropriate ensemble

252: average.  This function shows essentially the same dependence on the

253: separation vector $\Br$, whether it is measured in the atmospheric

254: boundary layer, in a wind tunnel or in a DNS, provided

255: it is measured for sufficiently small separations and far from the

256: boundaries. This high-degree of universality cannot be expected if

257: anisotropic fluctuations were the dominant contributions to the

258: two-point structure functions. Different boundary conditions and

259: different forcing mechanism necessarily introduce different

260: large-scale anisotropies in the flow, which would translate to

261: different small-scale anisotropic fluctuations.  Small-scale

262: universality can be achieved only if anisotropic fluctuations are

263: sub-leading with

264: respect to the isotropic fluctuations. In the following, we also

265: discuss which aspects of the anisotropic fluctuations are {\it universal}

266: and

267: which are not.  We will see that some aspects of the anisotropic

268: fluctuations

269: depend on the boundary conditions while other aspects do

270: not. In fact we will show that scaling exponents are expected to be

271: universal whereas amplitudes depend on the boundary conditions.

272: 

273: In the last 5 years, a tremendous progress in the understanding of

274: the two aforementioned problems, i.e., finding a mathematical

275: language that properly describes anisotropic turbulence and its universal

276: properties  has been achieved. Not surprisingly, the two

277: problems are closely related, as it often happens in physics - a

278: problem becomes considerably simpler if described in the proper

279: mathematical language.

280: The technical core of these recent achievements is the SO($3$)

281: decomposition \cite{ara99b}. This tool enjoys the advantages of being

282: mathematically simple, yet very powerful and systematic. By using

283: it, many of the mathematical complexities of dealing with

284: anisotropy in turbulence and in other hydrodynamic problems are

285: greatly simplified.  The principal idea is to represent the main

286: statistical observables, such as structure functions and

287: correlation functions, in terms of their projections on the

288: different $(j, m)$ sectors of the group of rotations.

289: It can be applied to all the

290: statistical quantities in turbulence, creating a detailed profile

291: of the effects of anisotropy.  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly,

292: the

293: SO($3$) decomposition reveals some new universal properties of

294: fully developed turbulence. It is expected that each sector of the

295: SO($3$) group has its own universal exponents. In particular, it is shown

296: that the exponents associated with the anisotropic sectors are

297: larger than the isotropic exponents, in accordance with

298: the isotropization of the statistics as smaller and smaller

299: scales are observed.

300: 

301: As already mentioned, the SO($3$) decomposition is useful also to

302: investigate isotropic and anisotropic fluctuations in other

303: hydrodynamic problems. In particular we will focus on the case

304: of scalar and vector quantities passively advected by a turbulent velocity

305: field. In

306: these cases, one may often elevate the phenomenological assumptions

307: made for turbulent anisotropic fluctuations to the status of rigorous

308: statements \cite{fal01}. By using a systematic decomposition in

309: different sectors of the SO($3$) group one may show that passive

310: scalars, advected by stochastic self-similar Gaussian velocity

311: fields, always possess isotropic {\it leading} small-scale

312: fluctuations. Moreover, one may quantitatively distinguish among

313: different kinds of anisotropies, assessing their rate of decay by

314: going to smaller and smaller scales. It turns out that the rate

315: of {\it recovery of isotropy} is typically much slower than

316: expected on the basis of dimensional analysis. Moreover, all

317: different anisotropic fluctuations decay in a self-similar way

318: but with different rates; the scaling exponents being universal,

319: while prefactors are non-universal \cite{ara00}. The very same

320: can be rigorously proved for the passive advection of vector-like

321: quantities, as for the case of magnetic fields when the feedback

322: on the velocity evolution due to the Lorentz force is neglected.

323: There, the vector nature of the transported quantity leads to an

324: even richer, and more complex, list of possible anisotropic

325: fluctuations \cite{ara00a,lan99}. Another important problem which we address

326: in

327: detail is the case of the passive advection of a vector-like

328: incompressible quantity, i.e.  a {\it passive vector with

329: pressure} \cite{ara01}. Although without any counterpart in nature, such a

330: system is particularly interesting because it can be seen, for

331: some aspects, as the closest {\it linear} approximation to the

332: non-linear Navier-Stokes evolution.  For example, it allows to

333: study in a systematic way some  problems

334: connected to the convergence of integrals involving the

335: pressure term.  Similar technical problems arise

336: also in the analysis of both isotropic and anisotropic multi-point

337: velocity correlations in Navier-Stokes equations.

338: 

339: Of course, a significant part of this review will be devoted to

340: applications of the theoretical and technical tools to physical

341: experimental data \cite{ara98,kur00,kur00a,she02,she02a,wander,iacob04}

342: and numerical data sets \cite{ara99,bif01,bif01a,bif02,ish02,sch00}.

343: In order to exploit the

344: entire potentiality of the SO($3$) decomposition one needs to measure

345: the whole velocity field, $\B u(\B x)$, in a 3 dimensional volume.  This is

346: because in order to disentangle different projections on different

347: sectors one needs to integrate the given correlation function against

348: the proper eigenfunction of the rotation group on the 3$d$ sphere of

349: radius $r$.  By doing that, the exact projection on each different

350: sector of the SO($3$) decomposition is under control, with the only

351: practical limitations for reaching highly anisotropic sectors being

352: the lack of resolution of highly fluctuating angular properties.  At

353: the present stage of experimental capabilities the exact decomposition

354: can be carried out explicitly only in data sets coming from DNS.

355: Here the velocity field in the

356: whole testing volume is available. For experimental data, the best way

357: to exploit the SO($3$) decomposition is to either select observables

358: with vanishing isotropic components, in order to focus directly on

359: anisotropic sectors, or to perform a multi-sector analysis, i.e.  to

360: fit simultaneously the isotropic and anisotropic components.

361: 

362: The review is organized as follows. Sect. \ref{historyiso} offers a

363: historical review of isotropic turbulence. We present a modern derivation

364: of the exact results pertaining to the 3'rd order structure function

365: and the celebrated 4/5 law.  We review the standard theory for all

366: correlation functions, and discuss the experimental difficulties with

367: the isotropic theory. These difficulties included apparent persistence

368: of anisotropies into the small scales for high Re,

369: apparent location dependent scaling exponents etc. In Sect.

370: \ref{history-aniso}

371: we review the history of attempts to deal with anisotropy.  In Section

372: \ref{chap:modern}, the technical basis of the SO($3$) decomposition is

373: introduced focusing on the particular statistical problems of

374: anisotropic fluctuations discussed in the previous section.  Then, in

375: Sect. \ref{chap:analytical} we switch to study {\it exactly solvable}

376: hydrodynamic problems with emphasis on either those aspects

377: peculiar to each different model and to those features in common

378: with the  non-linear Navier-Stokes case. Among the common aspects

379: we cite the possibility to study in these models in full details the

380: {\it foliation} of the equations of correlation functions in different

381: anisotropic sectors; the universality of isotropic and anisotropic

382: exponents; the hierarchical organization of exponents --leading to

383: {\it recovery of small-scales isotropy}.  At the end of this section

384: we present closure results for two-point turbulent structure function

385: in the anisotropic sectors $j=2,4,6$.  In Sect.

386: \ref{chap:experiment}, the utility of this language is demonstrated by

387: discussing experimental data in atmospheric boundary layer and on

388: homogeneous-shear flows.  In Sect.

389: \ref{chap:numerics},

390: we present the analysis of anisotropy in DNS of

391: typical strongly anisotropic flows. Two cases are discussed in depth:

392: channel flows and random Kolmogorov flows, the latter being homogeneous

393: flows

394: stirred at the large scales.  Sect.

395: \ref{chap:conclusions} presents a  summary and conclusions.

396: Technical details are collected in the appendices.

397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

398: %%

399: %

400: % Section 1 - Historical review and state of the art

401: %

402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

403: %%

404: \section{Historical Review: Isotropic Turbulence}

405: \label{historyiso}

406: In the first two sections we present a historical review. We start

407: with the model of homogeneous isotropic turbulence, and then turn to

408: previous attempts to treat theoretically  anisotropy in

409: turbulence.

410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

411: \subsection{Homogeneous and Isotropic Turbulence}

412: The Navier-Stokes equations for the velocity field are invariant to

413: all rotations:

414: \begin{eqnarray}

415: \frac{\partial \Bu(\Bx,t)}{\partial t} +\left[\Bu(\Bx,t)\cdot

416: \B\nabla\right]\Bu(\Bx,t)&=&

417: -\B\nabla p(\Bx,t) +\nu \Delta^2 \Bu(\Bx,t) \ , \label{NS}\\

418: \B \nabla \cdot \Bu(\Bx,t) &=&0,\nonumber

419: \end{eqnarray}

420: with $p(\Bx,t)$ and $\nu$ being the pressure and kinematic viscosity

421: respectively.  Since the gradient and Laplacian operators are both

422: rotationally invariant, the rotation symmetry of the equation can be

423: broken only by anisotropic forcing terms or anisotropic boundary

424: conditions. Rather naturally then the statistical theory of turbulence

425: was mostly developed in the framework of \emph{isotropic turbulence}

426: \cite{tay35}.

427: The central idea of this approximation is that

428: the statistical average of any function of the velocity

429: components in any coordinate system  is unaltered

430: if this coordinate system  is rotated or reflected in any manner.

431: The assumption of isotropy was  widely adopted. In 1938,

432: K\'arm\'an and Howarth \cite{kar38} used it  to explore the

433: second- and third-order correlation-functions of the velocity field. Their

434: use of tensor notation was more elegant and compact than that used by

435: Taylor. It enabled them to derive some constraints on these correlation

436: functions and express them in terms of a few scalar functions. For example,

437: for the second-order correlation-function in homogeneous turbulence

438: \begin{equation}

439: \label{def:KA-C2}

440:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br,t)

441:     \equiv \left< u^\alpha(\Bx+\Br,t) u^\beta(\Bx,t) \right> \ ,

442: \end{equation}

443: they used the representation

444: \begin{equation}

445: \label{eq:KA-C2}

446:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br,t) = [f(r,t)-g(r,t)]\hat{r}^\alpha\hat{r}^\beta

447:     + g(r,t)\delta^{\alpha\beta} \ ,

448: \end{equation}

449: and then derived a linear differential relation between $f(r,t)$ and

450: $g(r,t)$ using the solenoidal condition of $\partial_\alpha

451: C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br,t)=0$,

452: $$

453:   2f(r,t) - 2g(r,t) = -r\frac{\partial f(r,t)}{\partial r} \ .

454: $$

455: This means that under the assumption of isotropy, and using the

456: solenoidal condition, the second-order correlation-function can be

457: written in terms of one scalar function instead of nine.

458: Similarly, K\'arm\'an and Howarth analyzed the third-order correlation

459: function by representing it as an isotropic tensor and then reducing the

460: number of scalar functions using the solenoidal condition. They were

461: also able to connect it to the second-order correlation function in

462: decaying turbulence using the Navier-Stokes equations. These computations

463: have

464: since found their way into  every standard text-book on the

465: statistical theory of turbulence.

466: 

467: The mathematical representation of isotropic turbulence has

468: reached its most elegant and powerful form in a paper by

469: H.~P.~Robertson from 1940 \cite{rob40}.

470: Robertson provided a systematic way to represent isotropic

471: tensors using the theory of invariants.  For example, to derive the general

472: representation (\ref{eq:KA-C2}) in the stationary case using Robertson's

473: method, we

474: consider the \emph{scalar} function

475: $$

476:   C(\B{a}, \B{b}, \Br) \equiv C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)a_\alpha b_\beta \ ,

477: $$

478: with $\B{a}$ and $\B{b}$ being two arbitrary vectors. If

479: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$ were an isotropic tensor, $C(\B{a}, \B{b},

480: \Br)$ would preserve its functional form upon an arbitrary

481: (simultaneous) rotation of the three vectors $\Br, \B{a}, \B{b}$.

482: Using invariant theory, Robertson deduced that $C(\B{a}, \B{b},

483: \Br)$ must be a function of the six possible scalar products

484: $(\Br\cdot\Br)$, $(\Br\cdot\B{a})$,... and of the determinant

485: $[\Br\B{a}\B{b}]\equiv\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta}r^\mu a^\alpha

486: b^\beta$. Additionally, by definition, it must be a bilinear

487: function of $\B{a}$ and $\B{b}$ and therefore must have the

488: following form:

489: $$

490:   C(\B{a}, \B{b}, \Br) = A(r)(\Br\cdot\B{a})(\Br\cdot\B{b})

491:     + B(r)(\B{a}\cdot\B{b}) + C(r)[\Br\B{a}\B{b}] \ ,

492: $$

493: where $A(r)$, $B(r)$ and $C(r)$ are arbitrary functions. Finally,

494: recalling that $C(\B{a}, \B{b}, \Br)$ is the contraction of

495: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$ with $\B{a}$ and $\B{b}$, we find that

496: $$

497:  C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br) = A(r)r^\alpha r^\beta + B(r)\delta^{\alpha\beta}

498:     + C(r)\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}r_\mu \ .

499: $$

500: If we further demand $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$ to be invariant to

501: improper rotations as well (i.e., rotations plus reflections), we

502: can drop the skew-symmetric part $\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}$,

503: thus retaining a representation which is equivalent to

504: \Eq{eq:KA-C2}.

505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

506: \subsection{The 4/5 law in Isotropic Turbulence and its Generalization}

507: By using the isotropic representation of the third-order

508: correlation function, in 1941 Kolmogorov proved the ``four-fifth law''

509: well inside the inertial range of a fully developed turbulence. This law

510: pertains

511: to the third order moment of longitudinal velocity differences,

512: stating that in homogeneous, isotropic and stationary turbulence,

513: in the limit of vanishing kinematic viscosity $\nu\to 0$

514: $$

515: \left<[\delta u_l(\B x,\Br,t)]^3\right> = -\frac{4}{5}

516: \eb r \ , $$

517: where $\eb$ is the mean

518: energy flux per unit time and mass, $\eb\equiv

519: \nu\left<|\nabla_\alpha u_\beta|^2\right>$. The fundamental assumption

520: needed to derive this law is  the so-called ``dissipation anomaly''

521: which means that the dissipation  is finite in

522: the limit $\nu\to 0$. As noted in \cite{fri95}, ``this is one of the

523: most important results in fully developed turbulence because it

524: is both exact and nontrivial. It thus constitutes a kind of

525: `boundary condition' on theories of turbulence: such theories, to

526: be acceptable, must either satisfy the four-fifth law, or

527: explicitly violate the assumptions made in deriving it".

528: 

529: To demonstrate how isotropy helps in deriving this result, we

530: present a re-derivation in which we will obtain an additional

531: exact relation that appears to have the same status as the

532: four-fifth law, pertaining to homogeneous, stationary and

533: isotropic turbulence with helicity \cite{chk96,lvo97a}. Defining the

534: velocity $\Bv(\Bx,t)$ as

535:  $\B v(\Bx,t)\equiv \B u(\Bx,t)-\left<\B u\right>$

536: we consider the simultaneous 3rd order tensor

537: correlation function which depends on two space points:

538: \begin{equation}

539: J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(\Br)\equiv

540:  \left<v^\alpha(\Bx+\Br,t)v^\beta(\B x,t) v^\gamma(\B x,t)\right> \ .

541: \label{defJ}

542: \end{equation}

543: We show that in the limit $\nu\to 0$, under the same assumption

544: leading to the fourth-fifth law, this correlation function reads

545: \cite{lvo97a}

546: \begin{equation}

547: J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(\Br)=-{\eb \over

548: 10}(r^\gamma\delta_{\alpha\beta}

549: +r^\beta\delta_{\alpha\gamma}-{2\over

550: 3}r^\alpha\delta_{\beta\gamma}) - {h\over 30}

551: (\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\delta}r^\gamma+\epsilon_{\alpha\gamma\delta}r^\beta)

552: r^\delta \ , \label{result}

553: \end{equation}

554: where $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Kronecker delta and

555: $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is the fully antisymmetric tensor.

556: The quantity $h$ is the mean dissipation of helicity per

557: unit mass and time,

558: $$

559: h \equiv \nu \left<(\nabla^\alpha u^\beta)(\nabla^\alpha[\B

560: \nabla\times \B u]^\beta)\right> \ , $$

561: where repeated indices are summed upon. In the derivation below it assumed

562: that $h$ remains constant when $\nu \rightarrow 0$ in the same spirit of the

563: dissipation anomaly \cite{eyink1,eyink2,bif98c}. The first term in Eq.

564: (\ref{result}) is just the 4/5 law. The new part of result

565: (\ref{result}) can be also displayed in a form that depends on

566: $h$ alone by introducing the longitudinal and transverse

567: parts of $\B u$: the longitudinal part is $\B u_l\equiv \B r(\B

568: u\cdot \B r)/r^2$ and the transverse part is $\B u_t \equiv \B

569: u-\B u_l$. In terms of these quantities we

570: can present a ``two fifteenth law"

571: \begin{equation}

572: \left<[\delta\B u_l(\B x,\B r,t)]\cdot [\B u_t(\B r+\Bx,t)

573: \times \B u_t(\B x,t)]\right> =\frac{2}{15}h r^2 \ .

574: \label{short}

575: \end{equation}

576: We note that this result holds also when we replace $\B u$ by $\B

577: v$ everywhere.

578: 

579: To derive the result (\ref{result}) we start from the correlation

580: function $J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(\B r)$ which is symmetric with

581: respect to exchange of the indices $\beta$ and $\gamma$ as is

582: clear from the definition. In an isotropic homogeneous medium with

583: helicity (no inversion symmetry), the most general form of this

584: object is \cite{lvo97a}:

585: \begin{eqnarray}

586: &&J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(\B

587: r)=a_1(r)[\delta_{\alpha\beta}r^\gamma+\delta_{\alpha\gamma}

588: r^\beta+\delta_{\beta\gamma}r^\alpha] \label{general}

589: +\tilde

590: a_1(r)[\delta_{\alpha\beta}r^\gamma+\delta_l{\alpha\gamma}

591: r^\beta-2\delta_{\beta\gamma}r^\alpha]\nonumber \\

592: &&+b_2(r)[\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\delta}

593: r^\gamma+\epsilon_{\alpha\gamma\delta} r^\beta]r^\delta

594: +a_3(r)[\delta_{\alpha\beta}r^\gamma+\delta_{\alpha\gamma}

595: r^\beta+\delta_{\beta\gamma}r^\alpha-5r^\alpha r^\beta

596: r^\gamma/r^2] \ . \nonumber

597: \end{eqnarray}

598: This general representation is invariant to the choice of

599: orientation of the coordinates.

600: Not all the coefficients are independent for incompressible

601: flows. Requiring $\partial J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(\B r)/\partial

602: r^\alpha=0$ leads to two relations among the coefficients:

603: $$

604: \Big({d\over dr}+{5\over r}\Big)a_3(r)={2\over 3}{d\over

605: dr}\big[a_1(r)

606: +\tilde a_1(r)\big]  \ , \qquad

607: \Big({d\over dr}+{3\over r}\Big)\big[5a_1(r)-4\tilde

608: a_1(r)\big]=0 \ . $$

609: As we have two conditions relating the three coefficients

610: $a_1,\tilde a_1$ and $a_3$ only one of them is independent.

611: Kolmogorov's derivation related the rate of energy dissipation to

612: the value of the remaining unknown. Here the coefficient $b_2$

613: remains undetermined by the incompressibility constraint; it will

614: be determined by the rate of helicity dissipation.

615: 

616: Kolmogorov's derivation can be paraphrased in a simple manner.

617: Begin with the second order structure function $\tilde S^{(2)}(r)\equiv

618: \la |\Bu (\B x +\B r)- \Bu(\B x)|^2 \ra$.

619: Computing the rate of change of this (time-independent) function

620: from the Navier-Stokes equations (\ref{NS}) we find

621: \begin{equation}

622: 0={\partial \tilde S^{(2)}(r)\over 2\partial t}=-{\mathcal

623: D}^{(2)}(r)-2\eb+\nu\nabla^2 \tilde S^{(2)}(r) \ , \label{bal}

624: \end{equation}

625: where ${\mathcal D}^{(2)}(r)$ stems from the nonlinear term $(\B u\cdot\B

626: \nabla)\B u$ and as a result it consists of a correlation

627: function including a velocity derivative. The conservation of

628: energy allows the derivative to be taken outside the correlation

629: function:

630: \begin{equation}

631: {\mathcal D}^{(2)}(r) \equiv {\partial\over \partial r^\beta} \langle

632: u^\alpha(\B x,t)u^\alpha(\B x+\B r,t)

633: \big[u^\beta(\Bx,t)-\!u^\beta(\B x+\B r,t)\big]\rangle \ . \label{D2}

634: \end{equation}

635: In terms of the function of Eq. (\ref{defJ}) we can write

636: \begin{equation}

637: {\mathcal D}^{(2)}(r) =  {\partial\over \partial

638: r^\beta}\Big[J^{\alpha,\beta\alpha}(\B r,t)-

639: J^{\alpha,\beta\alpha}(-\B r,t)\Big] \ . \label{relate}

640: \end{equation}

641: Note that Eq. (\ref{defJ}) is written in terms of $\B v$ rather

642: than $\B u$, but using the incompressibility constraint we can

643: easily prove that Eq. (\ref{D2}) can also  be identically written

644: in terms of $\B v$ rather than $\B u$. We proceed using Eq.

645: (\ref{general}) in Eq. (\ref{relate}), and find

646: \begin{equation}

647: {\mathcal D}^{(2)}(r) =  2{\partial\over \partial

648: r^\beta}r^\beta\big[5a_1(r)+2\tilde a_1(r)\big] \ . \label{D2a1}

649: \end{equation}

650: For $r$ in the inertial interval, and for $\nu\to 0$, we can read

651: from Eq. (\ref{bal}) ${\mathcal D}^{(2)}(r)=-2\eb$ and therefore

652: have the third relation that is needed to solve all the three

653: unknown coefficients. A calculation leads to

654: $$

655: a_1(r)=-2\eb/45\ , \quad \tilde a_1=-\eb/18\ ,

656: \quad a_3=0\ . $$

657: The choice of the structure function $\tilde S_2(r)$ leaves the

658: coefficient $b_2(r)$ undetermined, and another correlation

659: function is needed in order to remedy the situation. Since the

660: helicity is $\B u\cdot [\B \nabla\times \B u]$, we seek a

661: correlation function which is related to the helicity of eddys of

662: scale of $r$:

663: $$

664: T^{(2)}(r)\equiv \langle \big[\B u(\B r+\B x,t)-\B u(\B x,t)\big]

665: \nonumber \cdot \big[\B \nabla\times \B u(\B x+\B r,t)-\B

666: \nabla\times \B u(\B x,t)\big]\rangle \ . $$

667: Using the Navier-Stokes equations to compute the rate of change

668: of this quantity we find

669: \begin{equation}

670: 0={\partial T^{(2)}(r)\over 2\partial t}=-G^{(2)}(r)-2h

671: -\nu\nabla^2T^{(2)}(r) \ , \label{bal2}

672: \end{equation}

673: which is the analog of (\ref{bal}), and where

674: \begin{eqnarray}

675: G^{(2)}(r)&=&\left\{\langle\B u(\B x,t)\cdot\left[\B \nabla_r\times\left[\B

676: u(\B x+\B r,t)\times \left[\B \nabla_r \times \B

677: u(\B x+\B r,t)\right]\right]\right]\rangle\right\} \nonumber\\&+&\{{\rm

678: term}~\B r\to -\B

679: r\} \ . \label{G2}

680: \end{eqnarray}

681: The conservation of helicity allows the extraction of two

682: derivatives outside the correlation functions. The result can be

683: expressed in terms of the  definition (\ref{defJ}):

684: $$

685: G^{(2)}(r)={\partial\over \partial R^\lambda}{\partial\over \partial

686: r^\kappa}

687: \epsilon_{\alpha\lambda\mu}\epsilon_{\mu\beta\nu}\epsilon_{\nu\kappa\gamma}

688: \big[J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(\B r)+J^{\alpha,\beta\gamma}(-\B

689: r)\big] \ . $$

690: Substituting Eq. (\ref{general}) we find

691: $$

692: G^{(2)}(r)=2{\partial^2\over \partial r^\lambda \partial

693: r^\kappa}b_2(r)\big[r^\lambda r^\kappa

694: -\delta_{\lambda\kappa}r^2\big] \ , $$

695: which is the analog of Eq. (\ref{D2a1}). Using Eq. (\ref{bal2})

696: in the inertial interval in the limit $\nu\to 0$ we find the

697: differential equation

698: $$

699: r^2{d^2 b_2(r)\over dr^2}+9r{db_2(r)\over dr} +15 b_2(r)=-{h

700: \over 2} \ . $$

701: The general solution of this equation is

702: $b_2(r) = -h / 30+\alpha_1 r^{-5}+\alpha_2 r^{-3}$.

703: Requiring finite solutions in the limit $r\to 0$ means that

704: $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=0$. Accordingly we end up with Eq.

705: (\ref{result}).

706: The moral of this example is that {\em even in isotropic and

707: homogeneous systems there exist sub-leading terms} which can

708: become dominant for specially selected objects like (\ref{short}).

709: Once anisotropy exists, there are many more (in fact infinitely

710: many) sub-leading contributions that need to be assessed

711: carefully. Similar results for slightly different correlation functions

712: have also been found in \cite{kur03,pol03}

713: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

714: \subsection{Kolmogorov's Theory for 2'nd, 4'th, and Higher Order Structure

715: Functions}

716: \label{K41forSp}

717: Unfortunately, the exact result pertaining to the 3'rd order

718: structure function is rather unique. The moment we consider 2'nd,

719: 4'th or higher order correlation functions there is no exact

720: result for the scaling exponents. Kolmogorov's 1941 theory states

721: that, for Re large enough, small-scales turbulent

722: fluctuations should recover isotropy and homogeneity (if measured

723: far enough from boundaries) and should possess universal scaling

724: properties depending only on the mean energy flux, $\eb$.

725: For homogeneous and isotropic ensembles one defines

726: \begin{equation}

727:   S^{(n)}(r) \equiv \left< \delta u_{\l}^n(\Bx, \Br,t)

728:   \right>\ =  (\eb r)^{n \over 3}f^{(n)}({r \over L_0},{\eta

729: \over r}), \label{eq:k41a} \label{Sp}

730: \end{equation}

731: where $L_0$ and $\eta$ are the integral length scale and the

732: viscous scale, respectively. The function $f^{(n)}$ is supposed to be

733: well behaved in the limit of infinite Reynolds numbers for fixed

734: separation, $r$:

735:   $\lim_{x,y \rightarrow 0}  f^{(n)}(x,y) =$ const. In this limit,

736: the celebrated K41  scaling prediction for structure

737: functions in the inertial range,  $ \eta \ll r \ll L_0$, follows:

738: \begin{equation}

739: S^{(n)}(r) \sim  C^{(n)} (\eb r)^{\zeta^{(n)}}, \qquad \mbox{with}\;\;

740: \zeta^{(n)} = \frac{n}{3}.  \label{eq:k41}

741: \end{equation}

742:  In (\ref{eq:k41}) the constants

743:  $C^{(n)}$ depend only on the large scale

744: properties.  Because of stationarity, the mean energy flux in

745: Eq. (\ref{eq:k41}) can be equally taken to be the mean energy input

746: or the mean energy dissipation.

747: 

748: Kolmogorov's theory goes beyond the scaling prediction

749: (\ref{eq:k41}). For example, any non-vanishing $p$th order

750: structure functions, including purely transversal

751:    and mixed

752: longitudinal-transversal velocity increments, must possess the

753: same scaling exponents:

754: \begin{equation}

755:   S^{(n,m)}(r) \equiv \left< \delta u_{\l}^{n}(\Br) \delta

756:   u_t^{m}(\Br) \right>

757: \sim C^{(n,m)}(\eb r)^{\frac{(n+m)}{3}}, \label{eq:mixed}

758: \end{equation}

759: where $p=n+m$, $ \delta  \Bu_t(\Br) \equiv \delta  \Bu(\Br)- \delta

760: u_{\ell}(\Br)\hat{\Br}$,

761: and $\delta u_t(\Br)$ is one of the components of the two-dimensional

762: transverse velocity difference.

763: Notice that due to the assumption of isotropy, only even combinations

764: of transversal increment in (\ref{eq:mixed}) have a non vanishing

765: average.  It is also not difficult to extend the K41 reasonings to

766: describe also correlation functions at the viscous scales,

767: i.e. observables based on gradients statistics

768: \cite{fri90,ben91}.

769: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

770: \subsection{Experimental Difficulties with the Isotropic Theory}

771: \label{expcheck}

772: 

773: On the whole, experimental tests of Kolmogorov's theory ran into increasing

774: difficulties

775: when the data were analyzed with greater detail. The first systematic

776: attempt to check the isotropic scaling (\ref{eq:k41}) for high

777: Re number turbulence was

778: \cite{ans84}. These authors performed

779:  a high statistical test of K41 theory by going beyond

780: the usual two-point correlations. They measured  structure

781: functions of higher order, reaching good evidence that there exist

782: {\it anomalous} deviations from the scaling exponents (\ref{eq:k41}).  Their

783: data substantiate a power-law behavior with $\zeta(n) \ne n/3$.  At

784: that time, and for many year later, the situation was very

785: controversial both theoretically and experimentally. There appeared

786: many claims that the observed deviations were due to sub-leading

787: finite-Reynolds effects. One should not underestimate the difficulties

788: of getting reliable estimates of the scaling exponents.  First, one

789: must expect finite Reynolds numbers corrections which may {\it

790: strongly } reduce the inertial range  where scaling laws are

791: expected or introduce anisotropic corrections to the isotropic K41

792: predictions. Both effects are usually present in all experiments and

793: numerical simulations. Nowadays, state-of-the-art experiments of

794: turbulence in controlled geometries reach a maximum Re numbers

795: measured on the gradient scales, $\lambda^{-1} = \langle | \B\nabla \Bu|

796: \rangle

797: /\langle |\Bu| \rangle$, of $R_{\lambda}

798: \sim 5000$

799: where $R_{\lambda} = \frac{\lambda U}{\nu}$ and $U$ is the typical

800: large scale velocity.  In atmospheric flows $R_{\lambda}$ can be

801: as high as $R_{\lambda }\sim 20000$ but at the expense of high

802: anisotropy. More complex is the situation of  DNS where the best resolution

803: ever reached up to now is

804: $4096^3$ \cite{kan03}, corresponding to a $R_{\lambda}

805: \sim 1100$. DNS allow a minimization of the anisotropic corrections,

806: by implementing periodic boundary conditions

807: and fully isotropic forcing, something which is not

808:  experimentally feasible.

809: However, also in DNS the discrete symmetries

810: induced

811: by the finite lattice-spacing do not allow for  perfect isotropic

812: statistics. We thus either have high-Reynolds-numbers experiments

813: which are strongly perturbed by anisotropic effects, or DNS isotropic

814: flow at moderate Reynolds numbers. Therefore, one has to face the

815: problem of how to disentangle isotropic from anisotropic fluctuations

816: and how to extract information on the asymptotic scaling with a finite

817: --often short-- inertial-range extension. Only recently, after many

818: experimental and numerical confirmations of the results of

819: \cite{ans84},

820: the situation became clearer \cite{ben93b}. We may affirm now with

821: some degrees of certitude that the isotropic scaling exponents are

822: {\it anomalous}, the K41 prediction $\zeta(n) = n/3$ is wrong, except

823: for $n=3$ which is fixed to be $\zeta(3)=1$ by the exact $4/5$ law.

824: Moreover, the possibility to show analytically the existence of

825: anomalous scaling in turbulent advection

826: \cite{fal01}, definitely eliminated those arguments

827: supporting the {\it impossibility} to have a Re-independent

828: anomalous scaling in any hydrodynamic system. From a phenomenological point

829: of view, it is easy to extend the K41

830: theory such as to include  anomalous scaling.

831: Already Kolmogorov noticed, after Landau's criticism in 1962, that it is

832: unrealistic to expect the isotropic inertial range fluctuations to

833: depend only on the {\it mean} energy dissipation, $\eb$.

834:  Kolmogorov proposed in 1962 \cite{kol62} to employ the

835: coarse-grained energy dissipation over a box of size $r$,

836: \be

837: \label{eq:coarse}

838: \tilde

839: \epsilon(r,\Bx) = {1\over r^3}

840: \int_{|y| < r} d\By \eb(\Bx +\By),

841: \ee

842:  to

843: match the correct dimensions of structure functions in

844: (\ref{eq:k41a}), the so-called Refined Kolmogorov Hypothesis:

845: \begin{equation}

846:  S^{(n)}(r) = C^{(n)} \la \tilde \epsilon^{n\over 3}(r)\ra r^{n \over

847:  3}.

848: \label{eq:multifractal}

849: \end{equation}

850: This hypothesis connects the deviation from the K41

851: prediction, $\zeta(n) - n/3 = \tau(n/3)$, to the anomalous scaling of

852: the coarse-grained energy dissipation : $\la \tilde \epsilon^{n\over

853: 3}(r)\ra

854: \sim r^{\tau(n/3)}$.

855:  Anomalous scaling of isotropic structure functions is therefore

856:  connected to the multifractal properties of the three dimensional

857:  energy dissipation field \cite{fri95}.  It should be noted however

858:  that the Refined Kolmogorov Hypothesis related inertial range scaling

859:  to scaling of dissipative quantities, and delicate issues connected

860:  to small distance expansions and fusion rules are being disregarded

861:  here \cite{lvo96,ben98}. At any rate, the relation presented by

862:  Eq.(\ref{eq:multifractal}) did not advance the calculation of the

863:  scaling exponents beyond crude phenomenology.

864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

865: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% section %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

866: \subsection{Persistence of Anisotropies}

867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

868: \label{sec:persis}

869: A central issue of K41 phenomenology is the assumption of {\it

870: return-to-isotropy} for smaller and smaller scales.  Recently this

871: assumption had been put to test in experiments and simulations

872: \cite{pum96,gar98,kur00,bif01}.  A useful experimental

873: set-up to test the return to isotropy is a {\it homogeneous} shear

874: flow

875: \cite{hin75} where the large-scale

876: mean-velocity has a linear profile: $\B{V} = (V_0 y,0,0)$.  The shear

877: is given by ${\mathcal S}_{ij} = \partial_i V_j = \delta_{iy}

878: \delta_{jx} V_0$. We thus have

879: a homogeneous but anisotropic flow, close to the ideal case for

880: studying the influence of large scale anisotropies on the small scale

881: statistics.  ``Small scales" are defined here in comparison to the

882: characteristic shear length, $L_{\mathcal S} = \eb^{1/3}/{\mathcal S}$;

883: for $ r \ll L_{\mathcal S}$ we may expect that anisotropic fluctuations

884: are sub-leading with respect to the isotropic ones. The case $ r \gg

885: L_{\mathcal S}$ is of interest in situations where the shear is very

886: intense, as very close to the walls in bounded flows. In such cases we

887: expect a dramatic change  from the K41 phenomenology

888: \cite{ben02,tos99,tos00}.

889: Fortunately, it is not that difficult to design experiments or DNS

890: possessing an almost perfect linear profile with homogeneous shear

891: \cite{pum96,she00,gar98,ben02}.

892: A popular way to measure small-scales anisotropies is to focus on the

893: Re dependence of isotropic and anisotropic statistical

894: observables built in terms of velocity gradients. For example, due to

895: the symmetries of the mean flow, gradients of the stream-wise

896: component in the shear direction, $\partial_y u_x$, may have a skewed

897: distribution only due to the anisotropic fluctuations; they have a

898: symmetric PDF in a perfectly isotropic flow.  A natural measure of the

899: residual anisotropy at small scales as a function of  Re

900:  is the mixed generalized skewness based on gradients:

901: \begin{equation}

902: M^{(2n+1)}(R_{\lambda})

903: \frac{ \la (\partial_y u_x)^{2n+1} \ra}{\la (\partial_y u_x)^2

904: \ra^{\frac{2n+1}{2}}}.

905: \label{eq:der_ske}

906: \end{equation}

907: These objects vanish in isotropic ensembles. Of course, at finite

908: Reynolds numbers one expects that the large-scale anisotropy

909: introduced by the shear still remains, even on the gradient scale.

910: Therefore, the rate of decay of (\ref{eq:der_ske}) as a function of

911: Re is a quantitative indication of the rate of decay of

912: anisotropy at small scales.  In the next section we review Lumley's

913: dimensional arguments \cite{lum67} for anisotropic fluctuations, which

914: predicts:

915: \begin{equation}

916: M^{(2n+1)}(R_{\lambda}) \sim R^{-{1 \over 2}}_{\lambda},\qquad \forall \;\;

917: n.

918: \label{eq:der_ske_mf}

919: \end{equation}

920: In fact, both numerical

921: \cite{pum96,pum95} (at low Reynolds numbers) and experimental

922: tests (up to $R_{\lambda} \sim 1000$) showed a clear disagreement with

923: the dimensional prediction (\ref{eq:der_ske_mf}). For example in

924: \cite{she00} the

925: authors quote a  decay in agreement with the prediction for

926: $M^{(3)}(R_{\lambda})$, an almost constant

927: behavior as a function of Re for the fifth order,

928: $M^{(5)}(R_{\lambda}) \sim O(1)$ and an {\it increasing} behavior for

929: the seventh order $M^{(7)}(R_{\lambda}) \sim R^{+0.63}_{\lambda}$ !

930: These results have cast a severe doubt

931: on the fundamental assumption of the K41 theory.  Similar results, with even

932: more

933: striking contradictions with the hypothesis of the return-to-isotropy, have

934: been measured in the problem of passive scalar fluctuations, $\theta = T -

935: \la T \ra $, advected by an isotropic velocity field in the presence of a

936: mean homogeneous scalar gradient, $\B \nabla \la T \ra = (g,0,0)$.

937: The equation of motions for the passive advected field in this case

938: are: $$

939: \partial_t \theta + \Bu \cdot \B \nabla \theta =

940: g u_x + \chi \partial^2 \theta.

941: $$

942: Both experimental and numerical data show a strong

943: disagreement with the prediction that generalized skewness of

944: temperature gradients becomes smaller upon increasing

945: Reynolds and Peclet numbers \cite{war00,gib77,ant78,sre91,p94,cel01}.

946: 

947: We will show below how the analysis based on SO(3) decomposition and

948: its theoretical consequences settles this puzzle of strong {\it

949: persistence of anisotropies} \cite{bif01}. In fact, contrary to

950: what appears, the K41 phenomenology with its assumption of {\it

951: return-to-isotropy} and the above experimental results are not at all

952: in contradiction (see section \ref{pers_ani}).

953: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

954: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

955: \subsection{Longitudinal and  Transversal Isotropic Structure Functions}

956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

957: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

958: \label{sec:long-tran}

959: Another debated issue concerning the K41 phenomenology and its

960: multifractal generalization (\ref{eq:multifractal}) has to do with the

961: observed discrepancies between the scaling properties of longitudinal,

962: transversal, and mixed longitudinal-transversal structure functions in

963: (supposedly) isotropic fully developed turbulence

964: \cite{she02,che97,dhr97,got02,wat99}.  As previously

965: stated, K41 theory, for isotropic flows, predicts the same scaling

966: behavior, in the limit of high Re, independent of

967: the Cartesian components of the velocity increments in the structure

968: functions. For a given order $p=m+n$ only prefactors

969: in (\ref{eq:mixed}) may depend on the particular choice of $n$ and $m$.

970: Let us denote with

971: $\zeta^{(n,m)}$ the scaling exponent of the mixed structure function

972: (\ref{eq:mixed}) made of $n$ longitudinal increments and of $m$

973: transversal increments in a isotropic ensemble:

974: $$

975:   S^{(n,m)}(r)\sim C^{(n,m)} r^{\zeta^{(n,m)}}.

976: $$

977: For $p<4$ the issue does not exist; due to the incompressibility

978: constraint all second and third order longitudinal or transversal

979: structure functions have the same scaling in a isotropic ensemble. For

980: $p>3$ many experiments and numerical simulations found that

981: $\zeta^{(n,m)} < \zeta^{(n',m')}$ if $n<n'$ and $m>m'$ when $n+m=n'+m'$.  It

982: appears that with increasing $m$ the

983: scaling exponents reduce (the signal is more intermittent). The

984: largest difference for a structure function of order $p$ is therefore

985: achieved when we compare the purely longitudinal scaling $\zeta(p,0)$

986: with the purely transversal scaling $\zeta(0,p)$.  Other experimental

987: data suggests the possibility of a {\it slow} tendency of the

988: longitudinal and transversal scaling exponents to coalesce for

989: increasing Re \cite{zho99,nou97,cam96}.

990: 

991: We will argue below that the experimental measurements of different

992: exponents stems from anisotropic corrections that affect differently

993: the longitudinal and transverse components. In other words, by not removing

994: the

995: anisotropic contributions, one cannot expect pure power-law behavior.

996:   The situation is more

997: complex for the analysis of data from DNS. There, one may implement

998: highly isotropic forcing and boundary conditions, such that in most

999: cases any residual anisotropic effects may safely be neglected even at

1000: moderate Re numbers. On the other hand, state-of-the-art

1001: numerical simulations are still strongly limited in the maximum

1002: Re  achievable. Only very recently reliable data with

1003: high-statistics became available at resolution $1024^3$

1004: \cite{got02}, while most of the previous DNS where limited to  lower

1005: resolutions. At resolution of $1024^3$ one reaches a moderate

1006: $R_{\lambda} \sim 400$, far below many experiments. Because of the

1007: consequent limited extension of the inertial range, such DNS did not

1008: resolve the puzzle of longitudinal {\it vs} transversal scaling. The

1009: numerical results oscillate between evidence for different scaling

1010: properties and for its opposite

1011: \cite{che97,got02,bor97,ker01,gro98b}.  The issue is complicated

1012: by the fact that longitudinal and transversal structure functions

1013: possess different finite Re effects. For example, in

1014: \cite{got02} it was shown that structure functions

1015: of different order have different dependence on the viscous cut-off;

1016: this introduces ambiguity in defining a common inertial range where

1017: power law is expected. We thus propose that until high resolution

1018: isotropic measurements became available, all evidence for different

1019: scaling exponents for longitudinal and transverse structure functions

1020: should be considered with suspicion.

1021: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1023: \subsection{Position Dependent Scaling Exponents}

1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1025: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1026: \label{sec:position-dep}

1027: In some inhomogeneous

1028: simulations and experiments it was claimed that the measured scaling

1029: exponents depended on the point of measurement within the flow domain

1030: \cite{gau98,sad94,tos99,tos00,ono00,str96}. If true, such finding would

1031: deal a death blow to the idea of universality of the scaling exponents

1032: in turbulence. It should be stressed that in all the examples where

1033: such findings were reported the flow contained strong anisotropic and

1034: inhomogeneous components and/or the scaling range was not sufficient

1035: to actually present direct log-log plots for the structure functions

1036: vs. $r$. In some of these cases, scaling was extracted by using the

1037: method called ``Extended Self Similarity" (ESS) \cite{ben93b}; the use

1038: of this method can be dangerous in presence of anisotropic and

1039: inhomogeneous effects.  Whenever strong anisotropies are present one

1040: has to distinguish among two scaling ranges. At scales larger than the

1041: shear length, the energy cascade mechanism of the Kolmogorov theory is

1042: overwhelmed by shearing effects \cite{ben02,tos00}.  Only

1043: for scales smaller than the shear length the meaning of anisotropic

1044: corrections to the isotropic K41 scaling theory is well posed.  We

1045: argue below that the reported position-dependent isotropic exponents

1046: in the latter case stem from anisotropic components which appear with

1047: different amplitudes at different points in the flow. The different

1048: ``exponents" that were measured were not real exponents but the result

1049: of a crossover between the isotropic and anisotropic corrections.

1050: Once the data is projected onto the isotropic sector the leading

1051: exponents become position independent as expected.

1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% section 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1055: \section{Historical Review: Attempts at  Anisotropy}

1056: \label{history-aniso}

1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1058: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1059: \subsection{Bachelor's Approach}

1060: The first systematic approach to anisotropy in turbulence was

1061: suggested by G.~K.~Batchelor in 1946 \cite{bat46}.  Batchelor did

1062: not attempt to describe the most general form of anisotropy in

1063: turbulence, but instead confined himself to the easier case of

1064: \emph{axisymmetric turbulence}. In axisymmetric turbulence

1065:  the mean value of any function of the velocity field and its

1066:  derivatives is invariant to all rotations of the axes in a given

1067:  direction. Therefore, the anisotropy in axisymmetric turbulence is

1068:  induced by a single direction in space.  We denote this symmetry

1069:  axis by the unit vector $\Bn$. Being the easiest case of anisotropic

1070:  turbulence, axisymmetric turbulence was the main model for

1071:  studying anisotropy in subsequent years.

1072: 

1073: Batchelor used the invariant theory in order to take the anisotropy

1074: vector $\Bn$ into account in the tensor representations. His method

1075: is simple: add the vector $\Bn$ to the list of vectors in Robertson's

1076: method. For example, suppose we wish to construct an axisymmetric

1077: representation of the second-order correlation function

1078: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$ defined in (\ref{def:KA-C2}). Then, just as in

1079: the isotropic case, we create a scalar function by contracting the two

1080: indices of $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$ with two arbitrary vector $\B{a}$

1081: and $\B{b}$, with the difference that now we assume that the resultant

1082: scalar function depends on the unit vector $\Bn$ as well as on the

1083: other vectors $\Br$, $\B{a}$ and $\B{b}$. We therefore look for an

1084: invariant representation of the scalar function $C(\Br, \Bn, \B{a},

1085: \B{b})$, which  depends only  on the different scalar products

1086: $\Br\cdot\Br$, $\Br\cdot\Bn$, $\Br\cdot\B{a}\ $,... and the various

1087: determinants $[\Br\Bn\B{a}]$, $[\Br\Bn\B{b}]\ $,...  For some reason,

1088: Batchelor decided to ignore the skew-symmetric parts and considered

1089: only the scalar products. Using the fact that $C(\Br, \Bn, \B{a},

1090: \B{b})$ is a bilinear function of $\B{a}$ and $\B{b}$, Batchelor found

1091: that

1092: $$

1093:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br) = A r^\alpha r^\beta + B \delta^{\alpha\beta} +

1094:   C n^\alpha n^\beta + D n^\alpha r^\beta + E r^\alpha n^\beta \ ,

1095: $$

1096: where $A,B,C,D,E$ are functions of the amplitude $r$ and of the scalar

1097: product $\hat{\Br}\cdot\Bn$.  Notice that in this expansion the number

1098: of unknowns has grown from two to five with respect to the isotropic

1099: expansion. It would have been nine, had we taken the skew-symmetric

1100: parts into account. Indeed, a prominent characteristic of anisotropic

1101: representations is that they are far more complex than their isotropic

1102: counterparts.

1103: 

1104: Using this sort of representations, Batchelor was able to generalize

1105: K\'arm\'an-Howarth results to the case of axisymmetric turbulence. That

1106: is, after representing the second- and third-order correlation-functions in

1107: terms of few scalar functions, Batchelor used the solenoidal condition

1108: and the Navier-Stokes equations to derive some linear differential

1109: relations among them.

1110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1112: \subsection{Chandrasekhar and Lindborg's Approaches}

1113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1115: A somewhat more elegant approach to axisymmetric turbulence was

1116: offered a few years later by S.~Chandrasekhar

1117: \cite{cha50}. Chandrasekhar's treatment is similar to Batchelor's

1118: in following Robertson's work \cite{rob40}. Chandrasekhar

1119: took advantage of the skew-symmetric tensor

1120: $\epsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta}$ for creating a representation of

1121: solenoidal axisymmetric tensors. He noticed that the curl of an

1122: axisymmetric tensor automatically satisfies the solenoidal

1123: condition. Therefore, by representing the second- and third-

1124: correlation-functions as a curl of auxiliary tensors, Chandrasekhar

1125: automatically solved the solenoidal equations, and was left with the

1126: dynamical equations (which are derived from the Navier-Stokes

1127: equation) only. Chandrasekhar's dynamical equations are considerably

1128: simpler than those of Batchelor. Nevertheless, they are still very

1129: complicated and this, perhaps, explains why there was no serious

1130: attempt to continue Chandrasekhar's work in subsequent years.

1131: 

1132: In 1995 there was another attempt to formulate the kinematics of

1133: homogeneous axisymmetric turbulence in \cite{lin95}.  The

1134: representation in this paper was ``experimentally oriented'', in the

1135: sense that the scalar functions that are used can be measured directly

1136: in experiment. To accomplish that, one defines two auxiliary unit

1137: vectors (that were also used in \cite{her74}): $

1138:   \Be_1(\Br) \equiv \Bn \times \Br/|\Bn\times\Br| \ , \quad \Be_2(\Br)

1139:   \equiv \Be_1(\Br) \times \Bn \ $.

1140: The triplet $(\Bn, \Be_1, \Be_2)$ is an orthonormal basis of

1141: $\mathbb{R}^3$. But since it is made out of $\Br$ and $\Bn$ using

1142: invariant operations (i.e., vectorial products), it is invariant to

1143: simultaneous rotations of $\Br$ and $\Bn$, and thus it is invariant to

1144: rotations of $\Br$ alone around $\Bn$ (because in these rotations

1145: $\Bn$ remains fixed anyhow). Therefore any tensor that is built from

1146: these unit vectors and the products $\Br\cdot\Br$, $\Br\cdot\Bn$ is

1147: necessarily an axisymmetric tensor. For example, in order to represent

1148: the second-order correlation-function $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$, one writes

1149: \begin{eqnarray}

1150:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br) &=& R_1 n^\alpha n^\beta +R_2 e_2^\alpha

1151:   e_2^\beta + R_3 e_1^\alpha e_1^\beta +R_4 \big[n^\alpha e_2^\beta +

1152:   n^\beta e_2^\alpha\big] \nonumber \\ &&+\ Q_1 \big[n^\alpha e_1^\beta +

1153:   n^\beta e_1^\alpha\big] + Q_2 \big[e_2^\alpha e_1^\beta + e_2^\beta

1154:   e_1^\alpha\big] \ ,\nonumber

1155: \end{eqnarray}

1156: where the six scalar functions $R_1,{\ldots}, R_4$ and $Q_1, Q_2$ are

1157: functions of $\mu \equiv \Br\cdot\Bn$ and $\rho \equiv |\Br \times

1158: \Bn|$.

1159:   Notice that this representation takes into account the

1160:   skew-symmetric part of $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$ using the scalar

1161:   functions $Q_1$ and $Q_2$.

1162: 

1163: The major advantage in this representation is that the scalar

1164: functions have an immediate interpretation in terms of measurable

1165: quantities. With respect to the example above, if $(u,v,w)$ are the

1166: velocity components in the direction of $(\Bn, \Be_2, \Be_1)$

1167: respectively, then due to the orthonormality of triplet $(\Bn, \Be_2,

1168: \Be_1)$, we get

1169: \begin{eqnarray}

1170: && R_1 = \left<u(\Bx)u(\Bx+\Br)\right> \ , \quad R_2 =

1171: \left<v(\Bx)v(\Bx+\Br)\right> \ ,\nonumber  \\ && R_3 =

1172: \left<w(\Bx)w(\Bx+\Br)\right> \ , \quad R_4 =

1173: \left<u(\Bx)v(\Bx+\Br)\right> \ , \nonumber \\ && Q_1 =

1174: \left<u(\Bx)w(\Bx+\Br)\right> \ , \quad Q_2 =

1175: \left<v(\Bx)w(\Bx+\Br)\right> \ .\nonumber

1176: \end{eqnarray}

1177: Next one uses the solenoidal condition

1178:  to derive linear differential relations between

1179: the scalar functions. One can also consider the triple correlation

1180: function and the velocity-pressure correlation function in the very

1181: same method. This way one derives a representation for the dynamical

1182: equation of $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br)$.  Mathematically speaking, this

1183: representation is no better than Batchelor's representation, and may

1184: even be considered worse than Chandrasekhar's. This is because there

1185: is no reduction in the number of scalar functions and there is no

1186: simplification in the resulting equations. The motivation for this

1187: representation is experimental without compelling physical or

1188: mathematical contents.

1189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1190: \subsection{Case Specific Approaches}

1191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1192: The above mentioned works  can be viewed as

1193: \emph{systematic} attempts to deal with the problem of anisotropic

1194: turbulence, where a general method to describe the anisotropic (or,

1195: more exactly, axisymmetric) quantities in turbulence is suggested. In

1196: that respect they differ from most research that followed on the

1197: subject, which was usually confined to a particular model or a

1198: specific problem related to anisotropy.

1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1200: \subsubsection{Temporal Return to Isotropy}

1201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1202:  One such problem is the

1203: temporal  return  to isotropy in which one tries to understand the

1204: mechanisms that drive a decaying turbulence which is initially

1205: anisotropic into being statistically isotropic. As in the works of

1206: Batchelor and Chandrasekhar, the statistics was usually assumed to be

1207: spatially homogeneous to simplify the problem. The theoretical

1208: attempts to explain this phenomenon can be roughly divided into two

1209: groups. The first group, which was initiated by  Rotta

1210: \cite{rot51} in 1951, consists of attempts to model the decay of

1211: anisotropy using \emph{one-point} closures. In that framework, one

1212: usually considers the dynamical equation of the Reynolds stress, which

1213: is the \emph{same-point} correlation-function of the velocity field

1214: $

1215:   C^{\alpha\beta}(t) \equiv \left<u^\alpha(\Bx,t) u^\beta(\Bx,t)\right> \ .

1216: $

1217: In a homogeneous, decaying turbulence, this correlation obeys the following

1218: equation

1219: $$

1220:   \partial_t C^{\alpha\beta} = -\eb \phi^{\alpha\beta}

1221:     - \frac{2}{3}\eb\delta^{\alpha\beta} \ ,

1222: $$

1223: with

1224: \begin{equation}

1225: \label{eq:return-to}

1226:   \eb \phi^{\alpha\beta} \equiv \left<u^\alpha\partial^\beta p\right>

1227:     + \left<u^\beta\partial^\alpha p\right>

1228:     + 2\left[\nu\left<\partial_\mu u^\alpha \partial^\mu u^\beta\right> -

1229:     \frac{1}{3}\eb\delta^{\alpha\beta}\right] \ .

1230: \end{equation}

1231:  Notice that $C^{\alpha\beta}$ is a second-rank $\Br$-independent

1232:  tensor that contains an isotropic part (which is its trace) and an

1233:  anisotropic (traceless) part.  This explains the motivation behind

1234:  the definition of $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$, which is to capture the

1235:  anisotropic part of the decay rate of $C^{\alpha\beta}$. To solve

1236:  \Eq{eq:return-to}, one must model the $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$

1237:  tensor. Usually this has been done on a phenomenological basis. A

1238:  systematic treatment to this problem was offered by in

1239:  \cite{lum77}. In that paper, the authors suggested that

1240:  $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$ should depend on time implicitly through

1241:  $C^{\alpha\beta}$, $\eb$ and $\nu$. Additionally, since

1242:  $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$ is a dimensionless tensor, it must depend only

1243:  on dimensionless parameters. There are six such independent

1244:  dimensionless quantities. The authors chose to represent them in a

1245:  way which isolates the property of anisotropy from other properties,

1246:  and form the tensor

1247: $$

1248:   b^{\alpha\beta} \equiv C^{\alpha\beta}/q^2 -

1249: \frac{1}{3}\delta^{\alpha\beta}

1250:   \ , \quad q^2 = C^{\alpha \alpha} = \left<\Bu^2(\Bx)\right> \ .

1251: $$

1252: The tensor $b^{\alpha\beta}$ is proportional to the anisotropic, traceless

1253: part of $C^{\alpha\beta}$ and hence contains five independent components.

1254: It is often denoted as the ``Reynolds stress anisotropy'' or simply as the

1255: ``anisotropy tensor''. This tensor has become a central measure for

1256: anisotropy in turbulence and has been used extensively in experimental and

1257: numerical analysis of anisotropy in turbulence. The sixth component was

1258: defined to be proportional to the isotropic part of $C^{\alpha\beta}$ (the

1259: energy) by

1260: $ R_l \equiv \frac{q^4}{9\eb\nu}

1261: $. With these dimensionless quantities, $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$ can be written

1262: as

1263: $

1264:   \phi^{\alpha\beta} = \phi^{\alpha\beta}(\B{b}, R_l) \ $.

1265: They further simplified that expression by noticing that

1266: if $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$ depends solely on $\B{b}$ and $R_l$ then it must

1267: depend on them in an \emph{isotropic} manner, since any anisotropic

1268: dependence necessarily means that $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$ also depends on

1269: the boundary conditions. To represent this isotropic dependence

1270: explicitly, they used the invariant theory \cite{lum70} and

1271: introduced the second- and third- principal-invariants of the

1272: traceless tensor $\B{b}$:

1273: $$

1274:   II \equiv Tr[\B{b}^2] \ , \quad III \equiv Tr[\B{b}^3] \ .

1275: $$

1276: According to the invariant theory, $\phi^{\alpha\beta}$ can be most

1277: generally written as

1278: \begin{equation}

1279:   \phi^{\alpha\beta} = \beta(II,III, R_l) b^{\alpha\beta} +

1280:   \gamma(II,III, R_l) \Big[b^{\alpha\mu}b^{\mu\beta} -

1281:   \frac{1}{3}II\delta^{\alpha\beta}\Big] \ ,

1282: \end{equation}

1283: and the problem is reduced to determining the functional form of

1284: $\beta(II,III,R_l)$ and $\gamma(II,II,R_l)$. Based on this formalism,

1285: there have been many attempts to model the functions $\beta(II,III,

1286: R_l)$ and $\gamma(II,III, R_l)$ to match experimental results

1287: \cite{chu95}. For example, Rotta's model is considered a linear

1288: model for the anisotropy decay because he used

1289: $$

1290:   \beta(II,III,R_j) = C_1 \approx 3.0 \ , \qquad

1291:   \gamma(II,III,R_j) = 0 \ .$$

1292: Consequently, the decay of the anisotropy tensor is given by

1293: $$

1294:   \partial_t b^{\alpha\beta} = -(\eb/q^2)(C_1-2)b^{\alpha\beta} \,

1295: $$

1296: which is a linear equation in $b^{\alpha\beta}$, provided that the

1297: isotropic quantities $\eb, q^2$ are independent of

1298: $b^{\alpha\beta}$.  This sort of equation predicts that

1299: $b^{\alpha\beta}(t)$ is proportional to $b^{\alpha\beta}(t=0)$ and

1300: that every component of the tensor decays at the same

1301: rate. Experimentally however linearity is not supported. For example,

1302: it has been observed experimentally that the return to isotropy is

1303: relatively rapid, at least at the beginning of the process, when the

1304: invariant $III$ is negative, whereas the return to isotropy is fairly

1305: slow in the case where the invariant is positive \cite{gen80}.

1306: 

1307: The other line of research that was used to study the problem of the

1308: return-to-isotropy consists of attempts to model the decay with

1309: \emph{two-point closures}. In these models one considers the different

1310: correlation functions of the velocity field across a separation vector

1311: $\Br$, instead of using the same-point correlations as in the

1312: one-point closures. The mathematical structure here is usually much

1313: more complicated than that of the one-point closures, but in return,

1314: the two-points models often provide a deeper understanding of the

1315: physics involved.

1316: 

1317: An important example for such a model is given by \cite{her74}. In

1318: this work the author used the direct-interaction approximation (DIA)

1319: \cite{kra59} to study the decay of an axisymmetric turbulence into

1320: isotropy. The DIA is a well-known truncation of the renormalized

1321: perturbation theory for turbulence. The perturbation is done in the

1322: interaction strength parameter (which is set to unity in the end), and

1323: is truncated at the second-order - i.e., at the direct-interaction

1324: terms.  The calculations are done in Fourier space. They result in two

1325: coupled equations for the time evolution of the two-time, second-order

1326: correlation-function $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t') \equiv \left<

1327:   u^\alpha(\Bk,t)u^\beta(-\Bk,t')\right>$ and the response

1328: function $G^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$. The latter is defined as the

1329: average of the change in the velocity field at time $t$ as a result of

1330: an infinitesimal change in the forcing at time $t'$.

1331: The equations for

1332: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ and $G^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ determine

1333: their time evolution. They are nonlinear, nonlocal

1334: integro-differential equations and are therefore very hard to deal

1335: with. In the isotropic case the equations can be considerably

1336: simplified by noting that both $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ and

1337: $G^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ must satisfy the solenoidal condition,

1338: which in Fourier space means that both tensors must vanish once we

1339: contract any of their indices with the vector $\Bk$. It is easy to see

1340: that under such a condition, $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ and

1341: $G^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ can be represented in terms of one scalar

1342: function:

1343: \begin{equation}

1344:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t') = c(k,t,t')D^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\Bk}) \ ,

1345:   \quad

1346:   G^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t') = g(k,t,t')D^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\Bk}) \ ,

1347: \end{equation}

1348: where

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: \label{eq:projection-D}

1351:   D^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\Bk}) \equiv \delta^{\alpha\beta} -

1352:   \hat{k}^\alpha\hat{k}^\beta \ .

1353: \end{equation}

1354: When turning to the axisymmetric case, the representation of the tensors

1355: become much more complex. Instead of one scalar function for each tensor,

1356: two functions must be used corresponding to the two scalar functions that

1357: where used by Batchelor \cite{bat46} and Chandrasekhar \cite{cha50} to

1358: describe the second-order correlation-function in real space. One  uses

1359: the separating vector $\Bk$ and the anisotropy unit-vector $\Bn$ to create

1360: two unit vectors which are orthogonal to $\Bk$:

1361: \begin{equation}

1362:   \Be_1(\Bk) \EqDef \Bk \times \Bn/|\Bk\times\Bn| \ , \quad

1363:   \Be_2(\Bk) \EqDef \Bk\times(\Bk \times \Bn)/|\Bk\times(\Bk\times\Bn)| \ .

1364: \end{equation}

1365: With these vectors, $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk, t,t')$ was written as

1366: \begin{equation}

1367: \label{eq:Herring-rep}

1368:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk, t, t') = c_1(\Bk,t,t')\Be_1^\alpha\Be_1^\beta +

1369:   c_2(\Bk,t,t')\Be_2^\alpha\Be_2^\beta \ ,

1370: \end{equation}

1371: and $G^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t,t')$ was written in a similar way using the

1372: functions $g_1(\Bk,t,t')$ and $g_2(\Bk,t,t')$. To parameterize the angular

1373: dependence of the scalar functions, one expands the four scalar

1374: functions in terms of Legendre polynomials,

1375: $$

1376:   c_i(\Bk,t,t') = \sum_j c_{i,j}(k,t,t')P_j(\hat{\Bk}\cdot\Bn)

1377:   \ ,\quad

1378:   g_i(\Bk,t,t') = \sum_j g_{i,j}(k,t,t')P_j(\hat{\Bk}\cdot\Bn) \ ,

1379: $$

1380: obtaining an infinite set of coupled equations for the infinite set of

1381: functions $c_{i,j}(k,t,t')$ and $g_{i,j}(k,t,t')$. These

1382: equations were solved numerically after truncating all the $j>0$

1383: part of the expansion. Doing so,one finds the time evolution of

1384: $c_{i,0}(k,t,t')$ and $g_{i,0}(k,t,t')$ and connects them to the

1385: physical observables of the one-point closures, such as Rotta's

1386: constant. The  conclusions (partially numerical and partially obtained

1387: after a long series of uncontrolled approximations) were that the

1388: return-to-isotropy is much stronger at small scales (large $k$) and

1389: that in some classes of initial conditions, the return-to-isotropy is

1390: indeed a linear phenomenon.

1391: 

1392: This calculation was soon revised in \cite{sch76}. In this

1393: paper, the authors compared the DIA calculation to the results of a

1394: numerical simulation of a homogeneous and axisymmetric

1395: turbulence. This time, however, the Legendre polynomials expansion in

1396: the DIA calculation was extended to include also the $j=2$

1397: components. Their conclusions were that the DIA calculation that

1398: included the $j=2$ parts were in a good agreement with the numerical

1399: simulation, especially the $j=0$ parts, provided that the initial

1400: anisotropy was small. Additionally, the authors found that the

1401: previous calculation \cite{her74}, which considered the $j=0$ part

1402: only, was quite inadequate to describe the process of

1403: return-to-isotropy - even in the case of weak anisotropy.

1404: 

1405: Other attempts to study the problem of return-to-isotropy in an

1406: axisymmetric turbulence used two-point closures. For example,

1407: eddy-damped quasinormal Markovian approximation (EDQNM) \cite{ors70,ors77}

1408:  have been used in \cite{nak87}. In this closure scheme,

1409: one approximates the fourth order  cumulants of the velocity field by a

1410: linear damping term of the third-order correlation-function of the

1411: velocity field (the eddy dumping).  Additionally, a

1412: ``Markov'' assumption is used that allows one to integrate

1413: the history integral in the equations and retain an equation for the

1414: \emph{same time} second-order correlation-function

1415: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t)$. As in the DIA model, this equation is

1416: formulated in Fourier space and is both nonlinear and nonlocal. To

1417: parameterize the axisymmetric correlation function in Fourier space,

1418: the authors  used the following representation

1419: $$

1420:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk, t)

1421:   =

1422:   \frac{1}{4\pi k^2}\big[D^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\Bk})E(k,\mu,t) + n^\tau

1423:   n^\sigma D^{\alpha\tau}(\hat{\Bk})D^{\beta\sigma}(\hat{\Bk})

1424:   F(k,\mu,t)\big] \ ,

1425: $$

1426: where here $ \mu \equiv \Bk\cdot\Bn $ and $D^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\Bk})$

1427: is defined in \Eq{eq:projection-D}. This representation incorporates

1428: the solenoidality condition and is more elegant than

1429: (\ref{eq:Herring-rep}) in the sense that the isotropic case is very

1430: easily recovered once we set $F(k,\mu,t)=0$ and let $E(k,\mu,t)$

1431: become $\mu$-independent. Plugging this expansion to the dynamical

1432: equation of $C^{\alpha\beta}(\Bk,t)$, the authors obtained two coupled

1433: equations for $E(k,\mu,t)$ and $F(k,\mu,t)$ which they solved

1434: numerically for ``medium'' and ``strong'' anisotropic initial

1435: conditions. Their results indicate that in the medium anisotropy

1436: cases, Rotta's constant approaches a constant of the order of unity,

1437: qualitatively agreeing with Rotta's model and with the results

1438: \cite{her74}. On the other hand, in the strong anisotropy case this

1439: constant does not show any saturation, indicating the failure of

1440: Rotta's model. Additionally, their results support the idea that the

1441: decay isotropy strengthens when the $III$ invariant is negative.

1442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1443: \subsection{Dimensional Analysis in the Presence of Strong Shear}

1444: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1445: \label{sec:lumley}

1446:  An important discussion of the effects of strong shear on the energy

1447:  spectrum was presented in \cite{lum67}.  In this paper the author

1448:  included anisotropic corrections in to the K41 framework extending

1449:  the phenomenological dimensional reasonings leading to

1450:  (\ref{eq:k41a}). He considered the dependence on {\it anisotropic}

1451:  mean observables, like the large-scale Shear proportional to the

1452:  large-scale mean gradient: ${\mathcal S} \propto

1453: \partial \la V \ra$:

1454: $$

1455:   S^{(n)}(\Br) = (\eb r)^{n \over 3}f^{(n)}({r \over L_0},{\eta \over r},

1456: {\mathcal S}).

1457: %\case{1}{2}ill[eq:lumley]

1458: $$

1459: By further assuming that anisotropic corrections are ``small'' and

1460: {\it analytic} in the intensity of the shear ${\mathcal S}$, he proposed

1461: the following form for the anisotropic correction to the isotropic

1462: two-point longitudinal structure functions, in the inertial range

1463: \cite{lum67}:

1464: \begin{equation}

1465:  S^{(2)}(\Br) \sim C^{(2)}(\eb r)^{2 \over 3} + D^{(2)}(\hat{\Br}){\mathcal

1466: S} r^{4

1467: \over 3}

1468: \label{eq:Lumley}

1469: \end{equation}

1470: where the coefficient $D^{(2(}(\hat{\Br})$ takes into account the

1471:  dependence on the direction $\hat{\Br}$ in

1472: the anisotropic term.  The counterpart of (\ref{eq:Lumley}) for the

1473: spectrum and co-spectrum in Fourier space is:

1474: \begin{equation}

1475:  \la k^2 u_i(\Bk)u_l(-\Bk) \ra \sim k^{-{5\over 3}}(\delta_{il}

1476:  -{k_ik_l

1477: \over k^2}) + A_{il} k^{-{7\over 3}}

1478: \label{eq:k41F}

1479: \end{equation}

1480: where the first term on the RHS is the isotropic K41 scaling and the

1481: second term is the anisotropic contribution with $A_{il}$ being a

1482: traceless matrix depending on the details of the large scale shear.\\

1483: In the past, most of  the measurements of the anisotropic contributions to

1484: $S^{(2)}(r)$

1485: concentrated on the Fourier representation (\ref{eq:k41F}),

1486: \cite{sad94,tav81,sou95,lum65}.

1487: In \cite{sad94} the authors showed

1488: that the prediction (\ref{eq:Lumley} \ref{eq:k41F})

1489: is well verified in a wind tunnel

1490: flow. Later, many other experiments have confirmed this result in

1491: different experimental situations (see for example the recent results

1492: for an homogeneous shear in \cite{she00}). Only recently, a more extensive

1493: study of anisotropies has been carried out, considering also

1494: higher order statistical objects \cite{she00,she02,kur00,ara98}.  The

1495: situation became immediately less clear:

1496: the prediction (\ref{eq:k41F}) is not the end of the story (see below the

1497: section on anomalous scaling for anisotropic fluctuations).

1498:  We show later that in the jargon of the SO(3) decomposition the

1499: anisotropic part of a spherically averaged and solenoidal second-rank

1500: tensor is made  from $j=2$ contribution only,

1501:  for this reason the

1502: dimensional analysis is often viewed as predicting a $4/3$ exponent

1503: for the $j=2$ sector of the second-order structure function. This result

1504: was later derived by several authors in terms of Clebsch variables,

1505: but again by  dimensional reasoning

1506: \cite{yak94,gro94,fal95}. Another, more systematic attempt

1507: to derive  the scaling behavior of the second order structure function

1508: in a weakly anisotropic turbulent flow was presented in \cite{gro00}

1509: within a variable scale mean field theory. In that paper the authors

1510: reached the conclusion that all anisotropic contribution to the second order

1511: structure function must scale $\sim r^{4/3}$. To reach this result the

1512: authors

1513: had to simplify  the tensorial structure of the equations for the second

1514: order correlation functions; we argue below that this uncontrolled

1515: simplification 

1516: biased the estimate of the anisotropic exponents.

1517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CHAPTER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1518: \section{The Modern Approach to Anisotropy}

1519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CHAPTER %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1520: \label{chap:modern}

1521: In the past 10 years, the subject of anomalous scaling in turbulence

1522: has gained a great deal of attention, as it became more and more

1523: accepted that in the infinite Re limit, the scaling

1524: exponents of the structure functions in the inertial range do not

1525: conform with the classical prediction of the Kolmogorov theory.

1526:  The numerical values of these exponents, as

1527: well as the physical mechanism which is responsible for the anomalous

1528: scaling, have been the target of an extensive experimental, numerical,

1529: and theoretical research.

1530: 

1531: On the theoretical side, important progress was made by studying

1532: Kraichnan's model of passive scalar advection \cite{kra68}. This model

1533: describes the advection of a passive scalar field by a synthetic,

1534: solenoidal velocity field with a Gaussian, white-in-time statistics. The

1535: linearity of the equations for the passive scalar field and

1536: the white-in-time statistics of the velocity field make it possible to

1537: write down a closed set of equations for the same-time correlation

1538: functions of the passive scalar \cite{kra68}. In

1539:  \cite{gaw95,che95}, it was shown that

1540:  the solution of these equations can lead to anomalous scaling. The

1541:  key point is that the homogeneous solutions of these equations are

1542:  scale invariant with nontrivial anomalous scaling exponents, which

1543:  are different from the dimensional scaling exponents that

1544:  characterize the inhomogeneous, ``forced'' solutions. Being usually

1545:  smaller than the dimensional scaling exponent, the anomalous

1546:  exponents dominate the small scales statistics of the passive scalar

1547:  field. The homogeneous solutions are commonly referred to as ``zero

1548:  modes'', and have been calculated to first order perturbatively in

1549:  refs.~\cite{gaw95,che95} for the fourth order structure

1550:  function and for all even structure functions in

1551:  ref.~\cite{ber96}. Exact computer assisted calculations of the

1552:  exponents of the third order structure functions were presented in

1553:  \cite{gat}.   Besides suggesting an elegant mechanism for anomalous

1554:  scaling, Kraichnan's model also provided an example in which the

1555:  scaling of the anisotropic parts of structure functions is different

1556:  from the isotropic scaling. In the paper \cite{fai96} it was

1557:  shown how such a thing can happen, by expanding the second-order

1558:  structure function of the passive field in terms of spherical

1559:  harmonics $Y_{j,m}(\hat r)$. It was found that this expansion

1560:  leads to a set of decoupled $j$-dependent equations for the expansion

1561:  prefactors. These equations can be easily solved by a power law whose

1562:  exponent is an increasing function of $j$. These exponents are

1563:  universal in the sense that they are independent of the forcing and

1564: boundary

1565:  conditions.

1566: 

1567: The authors in \cite{fai96} also noticed that the fact that the anisotropic

1568: exponents are

1569: higher than the isotropic exponent neatly explains the isotropization of

1570: the statistics as smaller and smaller scales are probed.

1571: Based on this example, it was suggested in

1572: \cite{lvo96c} that a similar mechanism may exist in a Navier-Stokes

1573: turbulence. The authors  expanded the second-order structure function

1574: in terms of spherical harmonics

1575: \begin{equation}

1576:   S^{(2)}(\B r) = \sum_{j,m} S^{(2)}_{j m}(r) Y_{j m}(\hat{\Br}) \ ,

1577: \label{SO3dec}

1578: \end{equation}

1579: and argued that in the case of weak anisotropy, one can linearize the

1580: equations for the anisotropic corrections of the second-order structure

1581: function around the isotropic solution. In such a case, the kernel of the

1582: linearized equation is invariant under rotations (isotropic), and as a

1583: result the equations for the different $(j,m)$ components decouple, and

1584: are $m$-independent - much as in the case of the second-order structure

1585: function in Kraichnan's model. In a scale-invariant situation, this leads

1586: to anisotropic, $j$-dependent exponents

1587: $$

1588:   S^{(2)}_{j m}(r) \sim (\eb r)^{2/3}\left(\frac{r}{L}\right)^{\delta_j}

1589:     \sim r^{\zeta^{(2)}_j} \ . $$

1590: If one accepts that homogeneous turbulence enjoys universal

1591: statistics in the inertial range, then the kernel of the above

1592: linearized equation is universal, and consequently so are the

1593: anisotropic scaling exponents $\zeta^{(2)}_j$. All of these

1594: statements could not have been proved rigorously (and still

1595: haven't been proved rigorously), yet they offered a new approach

1596: to understanding anisotropy in turbulence, an approach that is

1597: explored in the rest of this review.

1598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1599: %

1600: \subsection{Mathematical Framework}

1601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1602: %42

1603: Experiments in fluid turbulence are usually limited to the measurement

1604: of the velocity field at one single spatial point as a function of

1605: time. This situation has begun to improve recently, but still much of

1606: the analysis of the statistical properties of Navier-Stokes turbulence

1607:  is influenced by this tradition: the Taylor hypothesis \cite{tay38} is

1608: used to justify the identification of velocity differences at different

1609: times with differences of longitudinal velocity components across a

1610: spatial length scale $r$. Most of the available statistical

1611: information is therefore about properties of longitudinal two-point

1612: differences of the Eulerian velocity field and their moments. Recent

1613: research \cite{lvo96} has pointed out the advantages of

1614: considering not only the longitudinal structure functions, but

1615: tensorial multi-point correlations of velocity field differences

1616: $$

1617: {\B w}({\B x},{\B x}^{\prime },t)\equiv {\B u}({\B x}^{\prime },t)-{\B

1618: u}({\B x},t),  $$

1619: given by

1620: \begin{equation}

1621: F^{\alpha_1\dots\alpha_n}({\B x}_{1},{\B x}_{1}^{\prime},t_{1};;\dots ;{\B

1622: x}_{n},{\B x}_{n}^{\prime },t_{n})

1623: =\langle w^\alpha_1({\B x}_{1},{\B x}_{1}^{\prime },t_{1})

1624: \dots w^\alpha_n({\B x}_{n},{\B x}_{n}^{\prime},t_{n})\rangle

1625: \label{defFtilde}

1626: \end{equation}

1627: where all the coordinates are distinct. When the coordinates fuse to

1628: yield time-independent structure functions depending on one separation only,

1629: these are the so-called tensorial structure functions,  denoted as

1630: \begin{equation}

1631: S^{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_n}({\B r})\equiv \langle \lbrack u^{\alpha_1

1632: }({\Bx}+{\Br})-u^{\alpha_1 }({\B x})]

1633: \cdots[u^{\alpha_n }({\B x}+{\B r})-u^{\alpha_n }({\B x})]

1634: \rangle \ .  \label{Sn}

1635: \end{equation}

1636: Needless to say, the tensorial information is partially lost in the

1637: usual measurements conducted at a single point. One of the main

1638: stresses of the present review is that keeping as much of tensorial

1639: information as possible can help significantly in disentangling

1640: different scaling contributions to the statistical objects. Especially

1641: when anisotropy implies different tensorial components with possible

1642: different scaling exponents characterizing them, careful control of

1643: the various contributions is called for.

1644: 

1645: To understand why irreducible representations of the symmetry group

1646: may have an important role in determining the form of correlation

1647: functions, we need to discuss the equations of motion which they

1648: satisfy. We shall show that the isotropy of the Navier-Stokes equation

1649: and the incompressibility condition implies the isotropy of the

1650: hierarchical equations which the correlation functions satisfy. We

1651: will use this symmetry to show that every component of the general

1652: solution with a definite behavior under rotations (i.e., components of

1653: a definite {\em irreducible representation} of the $SO(3)$ group) has

1654: to satisfy these equations by itself - independently of components

1655: with different behavior under rotations. This ``foliation'' of the

1656: hierarchical equations may possibly lead to different scaling

1657: exponents for each component of the general solution which belong to a

1658: different $SO(3)$ irreducible representation.

1659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1661: \subsection{Tensorial Correlation Functions and $SO(3)$ Irreducible

1662: Representations: General Theory}

1663: \label{sec:basis}

1664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1666: The physical objects that we deal with are the moments of the velocity

1667: field at different space-time locations. In this section we follow Ref.

1668: \cite{ara99b}

1669: which suggests a way of decomposing these objects into components with a

1670: definite

1671: behavior under rotations \cite{ara99b}. It will follow that components with

1672: different behavior under rotation are subject to different dynamical

1673: equations, and therefore, possibly, scale differently. Essentially, we

1674: are about to describe the tensorial generalization of the well-known

1675: procedure of decomposing a scalar function $\Psi ({\bf r})$ into

1676: components of different irreducible representations using the

1677: spherical harmonics:

1678: \begin{equation}

1679: \Psi ({\bf r})=\sum_{j,m}a_{jm}(r)Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}})\ .

1680: \label{scalar-case}

1681: \end{equation}

1682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1683: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1684: \subsubsection{Formal Definition}

1685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1686: Consider the correlation function ${\bf F}^{(n)}$ of

1687: Eq.~(\ref{defFtilde}).

1688: This $n$-rank tensor is a

1689: function of $2n$ spatial variables and $n$ temporal

1690: variables. It transforms as a {\em tensor field}: if ${\bf F}^{(n)}$ is

1691: measured in two frames $I$ and $\overline{I}$ which are connected by

1692: the spatial transformation (say, a rotation)

1693: $

1694: \overline{x}^{\alpha }=\Lambda ^{\alpha \beta }x^{\beta }

1695: $

1696: then, the measured quantities in each frame will be connected by the

1697: relation:

1698: \begin{eqnarray}

1699: &&\overline{{ F}}^{\alpha_{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}(\overline{{\bf x}}

1700: _{1},\overline{{\bf x}}_{1}^{\prime },\overline{t}_{1};\ldots ;\overline{

1701: {\bf x}}_{n},\overline{{\bf x}}_{n}^{\prime },\overline{t}_{n})

1702: =\Lambda ^{\alpha _{1}\beta _{1}}\cdots \Lambda ^{\alpha_n\beta _{n}}{

1703: F}^{\beta_{1}\ldots \beta_{n}}({\bf x}_{1}, {\bf x}_{1}^{\prime

1704: },t_{1};\ldots ;{\bf x}_{n},{\bf

1705: x}_{n}^{\prime },t_{n})

1706: \nonumber \\

1707: &&=\Lambda ^{\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}}\cdots \Lambda ^{\alpha

1708: _{n}\beta _{n}}{ F}^{\beta _{1}\ldots \beta _{n}}(\LL\overline{

1709: {\bf x}}_{1},\LL\overline{{\bf x}}_{1}^{\prime },\overline{t}_{1};\ldots

1710: ;\LL

1711: \overline{{\bf x}}_{n},\LL\overline{{\bf x}}_{n}^{\prime

1712: },\overline{t}_{n}). \label{tensor-trans}

1713: \end{eqnarray}

1714: We see that as we move from one frame to another,

1715: the {\em functional form}

1716: of the tensor field changes. We want to classify the different tensor fields

1717: according to the change in their functional form as we make that move. We

1718: can omit the time variables from our discussion since under rotation they

1719: merely serve as parameters. We thus define $\B T(\{\B x_i\})\equiv

1720: \B F (\{\B x_i\},\{t_i=0\})$.

1721: Consider coordinate transformations which are pure rotations. For such

1722: transformations we may simplify the discussion further by separating the

1723: dependence

1724: on the amplitude of ${\bf x}_{i}$ from the dependence on the directionality

1725: of ${\bf x}_{i}$: 

1726: $$

1727: T^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf x}_{p}) \\

1728: =T^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{p};\hat{{\bf x}}

1729: _{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}),

1730: $$

1731: where here we  have $p\le n$, i.e we  consider also

1732: the possibility that $n-p$ spatial locations

1733: in (\ref{tensor-trans}) coincide.

1734: For pure rotations we may treat the amplitudes $x_{1},\ldots ,x_{p}$ as

1735: parameters: the transformations properties of $T^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha

1736: _{n}}$ under rotation are determined only by the dependence of $T^{\alpha

1737: _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}$ on the unit vectors $\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots

1738: ,\hat{{\bf x}} _{p}$. Accordingly it seems worthwhile to discuss tensor

1739: fields

1740: which are functions of the unit vectors {\em only}. Notice that in the

1741: scalar case we follow the same procedure: by restricting our attention to

1742: scalar functions that depend only on the unit vector $\hat{{\bf x}}$, we

1743: construct the spherical harmonics. These functions are {\em defined} such

1744: that each one of them has unique  transformation properties under rotations.

1745: We then represent the most general scalar function as a linear combination

1746: of the spherical harmonics with $x$-dependent coefficients, see

1747:  Eq.~(\ref{scalar-case}).

1748: 

1749: The classification of the tensor fields $T^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}(

1750: \hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf x}}_{p})$ according to their functional

1751: change under rotations follows immediately from group representation

1752: theory \cite{Corn,Stern}.  But in order to demonstrate that, we must

1753: first make some formal definitions. We define ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$

1754: to be the space of all smooth tensor fields of rank $n$ which depend

1755: on $p$ unit vectors. This is obviously a linear space of infinite

1756: dimension. With each rotation $\Lambda \in SO(3)$, we may now

1757: associate a linear transformation ${\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$ on that

1758: space via the relation (\ref{tensor-trans}):

1759: $$

1760: \left[ {\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }T\right] ^{\alpha _{1}\ldots

1761: \alpha_{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf x}}_{p})

1762: \equiv \Lambda ^{\alpha _{1}\beta _{1}}\cdots \Lambda ^{\alpha

1763: _{n}\beta _{n}}T^{\beta _{1}\ldots \beta _{n}}(\LL\hat{{\bf x}}

1764: _{1},\ldots ,\LL\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}).

1765: $$

1766: Using this definition, it is easy to see that the set of linear operators

1767: $ {\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$ furnishes a representation of the rotation group

1768: $SO(3)$

1769: since they satisfy the relations:

1770: $$

1771: {\mathcal O}_{\Lambda _{1}}{\mathcal O}_{\Lambda _{2}} ={\mathcal

1772: O}_{\Lambda

1773: _{1}\Lambda _{2}}, \qquad

1774: {\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }^{-1} ={\mathcal O}_{\Lambda ^{-1}}.

1775: $$

1776: General group theoretical considerations imply that it is possible to

1777: decompose ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ into subspaces which are invariant to the

1778: action of all the group operators ${\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$. Moreover, we

1779: can

1780: choose these subspaces to be {\em irreducible} in the sense that they will

1781: not contain any invariant subspace themselves (excluding themselves and the

1782: trivial subspace of the zero tensor field). For the $SO(3)$ group each of

1783: these subspaces is conventionally characterized by an integer $

1784: j=0,1,2,\ldots $ and is of dimension $2j+1$ \cite{Corn,Stern}. It should be

1785: noted that unlike

1786: the scalar case, in the general space ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$, there might be

1787: more than one subspace for each given value of $j$. We therefore use the

1788: index $q$ to distinguish subspaces with the same $j$. For each irreducible

1789: subspace $(q,j)$ we can now choose a basis with $2j+1$ components labeled by

1790: the index $m$: 

1791: $$

1792: B_{q,jm}^{\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{

1793: {\bf x}}_{p})\;;\;m=-j,\ldots ,+j.

1794: $$

1795: In each subspace $(q,j)$, the group operators ${\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$

1796: furnish

1797: a $2j+1$ dimensional irreducible representation of $SO(3)$. Using the basis

1798: $

1799: B_{q,jm}^{\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{

1800: {\bf x}}_{p})$, we can represent each operator ${\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$ as

1801: a $

1802: (2j+1)\times (2j+1)$ matrix $D_{m^{\prime }m}^{(j)}(\Lambda )$ via the

1803: relation: 

1804: \begin{eqnarray}

1805: \left[ {\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }B\right] _{q,jm}^{\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha

1806: _{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf x}}_{p})

1807: &=&\Lambda ^{\alpha _{1}\beta _{1}}\cdots \Lambda ^{\alpha

1808: _{n}\beta _{n}}B _{q,jm}^{\beta _{1}\ldots \beta _{n}}(\LL\hat{{\bf x}}

1809: _{1},\ldots ,\LL\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}) \nonumber\\&\equiv &\sum_{m^{\prime

1810: }=-j}^{+j}D_{m^{\prime }m}^{(j)}(\Lambda

1811: )B_{q,jm^{\prime }}^{\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}

1812: _{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}).

1813: \nonumber \end{eqnarray}

1814: It is conventional to choose the basis ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ such that the

1815: matrices $D_{m^{\prime }m}^{(j)}(\phi )$, that correspond to rotations of $

1816: \phi $ radians around the 3 axis, will be diagonal, and given by:

1817: $

1818: D_{m^{\prime }m}^{(j)}(\phi )=\delta _{mm^{\prime }}e^{im\phi }$.

1819: The ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ space possesses a natural inner-product:

1820: $$

1821: \left\langle {\bf T},{\bf U}\right\rangle \!\! \equiv \!\!\int \!\!d\hat{

1822: {\bf x}}_{1}\dots d\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}

1823: \cdot T^{\alpha _{1}\dots \alpha _{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1}\dots \hat{{\bf

1824: x}}

1825: _{p})g_{\alpha _{1}\beta _{1}}\ldots g_{\alpha _{n}\beta _{n}}U^{^{\beta

1826: _{1}\ldots \beta _{n}}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1}\dots \hat{{\bf x}}_{p})^{\ast }\

1827: $$

1828: where $g_{\alpha \beta }$ is the 3-dimensional Euclidean metric

1829: tensor.  By definition, the rotation matrices $\Lambda ^{\alpha

1830: \beta}$ preserve this metric, and therefore it is easy to see that for

1831: each $\Lambda

1832: \in SO(3)$ we get: 

1833: $$

1834: \left\langle {\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }{\bf T},{\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }{\bf U}

1835: \right\rangle =\left\langle {\bf T},{\bf U}\right\rangle

1836: $$

1837: so that, ${\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$ are unitary operators. If we now choose

1838: the

1839: basis ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ to be orthonormal with respect to the inner-product

1840: defined above, then the matrices $D_{m^{\prime }m}^{(j)}(\Lambda )$ will be

1841: unitary.

1842: 

1843: Finally, consider {\em isotropic tensor fields}. An isotropic tensor field

1844: is a tensor field which preserves its functional form under any arbitrary

1845: rotation of the coordinate system. In other words, it is a tensor field

1846: which is invariant to the action of all operators ${\mathcal O}_{\Lambda }$.

1847: The

1848: one dimensional subspace spanned by this tensor-field is therefore invariant

1849: under all operators ${\mathcal O} _{\Lambda }$ and therefore it must be a

1850: $j=0$

1851: subspace.

1852: 

1853: Once the basis ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ has been selected, we may expand any

1854: arbitrary tensor field $F^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{1},\ldots

1855: ,{\bf x}_{p})$ in this basis. As mentioned above, for each fixed set of

1856: amplitudes $x_{1},\ldots ,x_{p}$, we can regard the tensor field $F^{\alpha

1857: _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf x}_{p})$ as a tensor field

1858: which depends only on the unit vectors $\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf

1859: x }}_{p}$, and hence belongs to ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$. We can therefore

1860: expand

1861: it in terms of the basis tensor fields ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ with coefficients

1862: that depend on $x_{1},\ldots ,x_{p}$:

1863: \begin{equation}

1864: F^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf x}_{p})

1865: =\sum_{q,j,m}

1866:  {\mathcal F}_{q,jm}(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{p})B_{q,jm}^{\alpha _{1},\ldots

1867: ,\alpha _{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1},\ldots ,\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}) \ .  \label{Texp}

1868: \end{equation}

1869: The goal of the following sections is to demonstrate the utility of such

1870: expansions for the study of the scaling properties of the correlation

1871: functions. For the important case of tensorial structure functions

1872: (\ref{Sn}) the basis function depend on one spatial vector only $\B r$,

1873: and we can expand 

1874: \be

1875: \B S^{(n)}(\B r) = \sum_{q,jm} S^{(n)}_{q,jm}(r) \B B^{(n)}_{q,jm}(\hat{ \B

1876: r}).

1877: \label{eq:so3sn}

1878: \ee

1879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1881: \subsubsection{Construction of the Basis Tensors}

1882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1883: \label{sec:construction}

1884: \paragraph{The Clebsch-Gordan machinery.}

1885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1886: A straightforward (although somewhat impractical) way to construct the basis

1887: tensors ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ is to use the well-known Clebsch-Gordan machinery.

1888: In this approach we consider the ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ space as a {\em

1889: direct

1890: product space} of $n$ 3-dimensional Euclidean vector spaces with $p$

1891: infinite dimensional spaces of single-variable continuous functions on the

1892: unit sphere. In other words, we notice that ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ is given

1893: by:

1894: $$

1895: {\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}=\left[ {\mathcal S}_{0}^{1}\right] ^{n}\otimes

1896: \left[ {\mathcal S}

1897: _{1}^{0}\right] ^{p},$$

1898: and therefore every tensor $T^{\alpha_{1}\dots \alpha_{n}}(\hat{{\bf x}}

1899: _{1}\dots \hat{{\bf x}}_{p})$ can be represented as a linear combination of

1900: tensors of the form:$$

1901: v_{1}^{\alpha_{1}} \ldots v_{n}^{\alpha_{n}} \varphi_{1} \left(

1902: \hat{{\bf x}}_{1}\right) \cdot \ldots \cdot \varphi_{p}\left( \hat{{\bf x}}

1903: _{p}\right) . 

1904: $$

1905: where 

1906: $v_{i}^{\alpha _{i}}$ are constant Euclidean vectors and $\varphi _{i}(\hat{

1907: {\bf x}}_{i})$ are continuous functions over the unit sphere. The

1908: 3-dimensional Euclidean vector space, ${\mathcal S}_{0}^{1}$, contains

1909: exactly

1910: one irreducible representation of $SO(3)$ - the $j=1$ representation - while

1911: ${\mathcal S}_{1}^{0}$, the space of continuous functions

1912: $\otimes$ over the unit sphere,

1913: contains every irreducible representation exactly once. The statement that $

1914: {\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ is a direct  product space may now be written in a

1915: group

1916: representation notation as:

1917: $$

1918: {\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}= \stackrel{n}

1919: {\overbrace{1 \otimes 1 \otimes

1920: \ldots \otimes 1}} \otimes \stackrel{p}{\overbrace{\left(

1921: 0\oplus 1\oplus 2\dots \right) \otimes \ldots \left( 0\oplus 1\oplus 2\dots

1922: \right) }}

1923: $$

1924: We can now choose an appropriate basis for each space in the product:

1925: \begin{itemize}

1926: \item  For the 3-dimensional Euclidean space we may choose:

1927: $$

1928: {\bf e}_{1}={\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(

1929: 1,

1930: i, 

1931: 0

1932: \right) ,\quad {\bf e}_{0}={\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(

1933: 0,

1934: 0, 

1935: 1

1936: \right) ,\quad {\bf e}_{-1}={\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(

1937: 1,

1938: -i, 

1939: 0

1940: \right) 

1941: $$

1942: \item  For the space of continuous functions over the unit sphere we may

1943: choose the well-known spherical harmonic functions.

1944: \end{itemize}

1945: 

1946: Once these bases have been chosen, we can construct a direct-product basis

1947: for ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$:

1948: $$

1949: E_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}\left( l_{1}\mu _{1}\right) \ldots \left( l_{p}\mu

1950: _{p}\right) }^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}\left( {\bf

1951: \hat{x}}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf \hat{x}}_{p}\right) \\

1952: \equiv e_{i_{1}}^{\alpha _{1}}\cdot \dots \cdot e_{i_{n}}^{\alpha_{n}}\cdot

1953: Y_{l_{1},\mu _{1}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{1})\cdot \dots \cdot

1954: Y_{l_{p},\mu _{p}}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{p}).

1955: $$ The unitary matrix that connects the ${\bf E}_{i_{1}\ldots i_{n}\left(

1956: l_{1}\mu _{1}\right) \ldots \left( l_{p}\mu _{p}\right) }$ basis to

1957: the ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ basis can be calculated using the appropriate

1958: Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. The calculation is straightforward but

1959: very long and tedious.  However, the above analysis enables us to

1960: count and classify the different irreducible representations of a

1961: given $j$. By using the standard rules of angular-momentum addition:

1962: $$

1963: s\otimes l=\left| s-l\right| \oplus \ldots \oplus \left( s+l\right)

1964: $$

1965: we can count the number of irreducible representations of a given

1966: $j$. For example, consider the space ${\mathcal S}_{1}^{2}$ of second-rank

1967: tensors with one variable over the unit sphere. Using the

1968: angular-momentum addition rules we see:

1969: \begin{eqnarray}

1970: {\mathcal S}_{1}^{2} &=&1\otimes 1\otimes \left( 0\oplus 1\oplus 2\oplus

1971: 3\oplus

1972: \ldots \right)  \label{dps21} \\

1973: &=&\left( 0\oplus 1\oplus 2\right) \otimes \left( 0\oplus 1\oplus

1974: 2\oplus 3\oplus \ldots \right) \nonumber \\ &=&\left( 3\times

1975: 0\right)\oplus \left( 7\times 1\right) \oplus \left( 9\times 2\right)

1976: \oplus

1977: \left( 9\times 3\right) \oplus \ldots \nonumber

1978: \end{eqnarray}

1979: We see that there are exactly three $j=0$ representations, seven $j=1$

1980: representations and 9 representations for each $j>1$. It can be

1981: further argued that the symmetry properties of the basis tensors with

1982: respect to their indices come from the $1\otimes 1=0\oplus 1\oplus 2$

1983: part of the direct product (\ref{dps21}). Therefore, out of the 9

1984: irreducible representation of $j>1$, 5 will be symmetric and

1985: traceless, 3 will be anti-symmetric and 1 will be trace-full and

1986: diagonal. Similarly, the parity of the resulting tensors (with respect

1987: to the single variable) can be calculated.

1988: 

1989: Once we know how many irreducible representations of each $j$ are

1990: found in ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$, we can construct them ``by hand'', in

1991: some other, more practical method which will be demonstrated in the

1992: following subsection.

1993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1994: \paragraph{Alternative derivation of the basis functions.}

1995: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1996: \label{alternative}

1997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1998: The method found most useful in application  is based on the

1999: simple idea that contractions with $r^{\alpha },\delta ^{\alpha \beta

2000: },\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }$ and differentiation with respect

2001: to $r^{\alpha }$ are all {\em isotropic} operations \cite{ara99b}. Isotropic

2002: in the

2003: sense that the resulting expression will have the {\em same}

2004: transformation properties under rotation as the expression we started

2005: with. The proof of the last statement follows directly from the

2006: transformation properties of $r^{\alpha },\delta ^{\alpha \beta

2007: },\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }$.

2008: 

2009: The construction of all ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ that belongs to ${\mathcal

2010: S}_{1}^{n}$

2011: now becomes a rather trivial task. We begin by defining a scalar tensor

2012: field with a definite $j,m$. An obvious choice will be the well-known

2013: spherical harmonics $Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}})$, but a better one will be:

2014: $$

2015: \Phi _{jm}({\bf r})\equiv r^{j}Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}}).

2016: $$

2017: The reason that we prefer $\Phi _{jm}({\bf r})$ to $Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}})$,

2018: is that $\Phi _{jm}({\bf r})$ is polynomial in ${\bf r}$ (while

2019: $Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}})$ is polynomial in $\hat{{\bf r}}$) and therefore it

2020: is easier to

2021: differentiate it with respect to ${\bf r}$. Once we have defined $\Phi

2022: _{jm}(

2023: {\bf r})$, we can construct the ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$ by ``adding indices'' to $

2024: \Phi _{jm}({\bf r})$ using the isotropic operations mentioned above. For

2025: example, we may now construct:

2026: 

2027: \begin{itemize}

2028: \item  $r^{-j}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r})$,

2029: 

2030: \item  $r^{-j+2}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\partial ^{\tau }\partial ^{\gamma

2031: }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r})$,

2032: 

2033: \item  $r^{-j-1}r^{\alpha }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r})$, \ etc...

2034: \end{itemize}

2035: 

2036: Notice that we should always multiply the resulting expression with an

2037: appropriate power of $r$, in order to make it $r$-independent, and thus a

2038: function of $\hat{{\bf r}}$ only.

2039: 

2040: The crucial role of the Clebsch-Gordan analysis is to tell us how many

2041: representations from each type we should come up with. First, it tells

2042: us the highest power of $\hat{{\bf r}}$ in each representation, and

2043: then it can also give us the symmetry properties of ${\bf B}_{q,jm}$

2044: with respect to their indices. For example, consider the irreducible

2045: representations of ${\mathcal S} _{1}^{2}$ - second rank tensors which

2046: depend on one unit vector $\hat{{\bf r} }$. The Clebsch-Gordan

2047: analysis shows us that this space contains the following irreducible

2048: representations spelled out in (\ref{dps21}).

2049: That is, for each $j>1$ we are going to have 9 irreducible representations.

2050: The indices symmetry of the tensor comes from the ${\mathcal

2051: S}_{0}^{1}\otimes

2052: {\mathcal S}_{0}^{1}=1\otimes 1=0\oplus 1\oplus 2$ part of the direct

2053: product.

2054: This is a direct product of two Euclidean spaces, so its a second rank

2055: constant

2056: tensor. We can mark the representation number in this space with the letter

2057: $s$, and the representation number of the ${\mathcal S}_{1}^{0}=0\oplus

2058: 1\oplus

2059: 2\oplus 3\oplus \ldots $ space with the letter $l$. This way each

2060: representation in ${\mathcal S}_{1}^{2}$ of a given $j$ will have two

2061: additional

2062: numbers $(s,l)$, which actually serve as the index $q$ that distinguishes

2063: irreducible representations of the same $j$. The $s$ index will determine

2064: the indices symmetry of the tensor, while the $l$ index will determine the

2065: highest power of $\hat{{\bf r}}$ in the tensor. If we now recall that in the

2066: space of constant second-rank tensors, ${\mathcal S}_{0}^{1}\otimes

2067: {\mathcal S}

2068: _{0}^{1}=0\oplus 1\oplus 2$, the $s=0,2$ representations are symmetric while

2069: the $s=1$ representation is anti-symmetric, we can easily construct the $

2070: { B}^{\alpha \beta}_{q,jm}$:

2071: \begin{equation}

2072: \begin{array}{ll}

2073: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 0,j\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{1,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2074: r}})\equiv

2075: r^{-j}\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2076: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 1,j-1\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{2,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2077: r}})\equiv

2078: r^{-j+1}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu }\partial _{\mu }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2079: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 1,j\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{3,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2080: r}})\equiv r^{-j}

2081: \left[ r^{\alpha }\partial ^{\beta }-r^{\beta }\partial ^{\alpha }\right]

2082: \Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2083: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 1,j+1\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{4,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2084: r}})\equiv

2085: r^{-j-1}\epsilon ^{\alpha \beta \mu }r_{\mu }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2086: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 2,j-2\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{5,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2087: r}})\equiv

2088: r^{-j+2}\partial ^{\alpha }\partial ^{\beta }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2089: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 2,j-1\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{6,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2090: r}})\equiv

2091: r^{-j+1}\left[ \epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }\partial

2092: ^{\beta }+\epsilon ^{\beta \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }\partial

2093: ^{\alpha }\right] \Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2094: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 2,j\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{7,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2095: r}})\equiv r^{-j}

2096: \left[ r^{\alpha }\partial ^{\beta }+r^{\beta }\partial ^{\alpha }\right]

2097: \Phi _{jm}({\bf r}), \\

2098: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 2,j+1\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{8,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2099: r}})\equiv

2100: r^{-j-1}\left[ r^{\beta }\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu

2101: }+r^{\alpha }\epsilon ^{\beta \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }\right] \Phi

2102: _{jm}({\bf r}), \\ 

2103: \left( s,l\right) =\left( 2,j+2\right) & B^{\alpha \beta}_{9,jm}(\hat{{\bf

2104: r}})\equiv

2105: r^{-j-2}r^{\alpha }r^{\beta }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}).

2106: \end{array}

2107: \label{eq:second-rank-tensors}

2108: \end{equation}

2109: It should be stressed that these $B^{\alpha \beta}_{q,jm}$ are not exactly

2110: the same

2111: one we would have gotten from the Clebsch-Gordan machinery. For example,

2112: they are not orthogonal among themselves for the same values of $j,m$

2113: (although, they are orthogonal for different values of $j$ or $m$).

2114: Nevertheless, they are linearly independent and thus span a given $(j,m)$

2115: sector in the ${\mathcal S}_{1}^{2}$ space.

2116: The  set of  eigenfunction, $B^{\alpha \beta}_{q,jm}$,  can be further

2117: classified in terms of its properties under permutation of tensorial

2118: indices,

2119: $\alpha \beta$ and in terms of their parity properties,

2120: i.e. how do they transform under the $\B r \rightarrow -\B r$ operation.

2121: Taking in to account both  properties we may distinguish:

2122: \begin{description}

2123: \item{Subset I} Symmetric in $\alpha,\beta$ and with  parity $(-1)^j$:

2124: $$B^{\alpha\beta}_{9,jm}(\hat{\B r}),

2125: B^{\alpha\beta}_{7,jm}(\hat{\B r}),

2126: B^{\alpha\beta}_{1,jm}(\hat{\B r}),

2127: B^{\alpha\beta}_{5,jm}(\hat{ \B r})$$

2128: \item{Subset II} Symmetric  to $\alpha,\beta$ exchange and with  parity

2129: $(-1)^{j+1}$:

2130: $$ B_{8,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{ \B r}),B_{6,jm}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{ \B

2131: r})$$

2132: \item{Subset III} Antisymmetric  to $\alpha,\beta$ exchange and with  parity

2133: $(-1)^{j+1}$:

2134: $$ B_{4,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{ \B r}),B_{2,jm}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{ \B

2135: r})$$

2136: \item{Subset IV} Antisymmetric  to $\alpha,\beta$ exchange and with  parity

2137: $(-1)^{j}$:

2138: $$B_{3,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{ \B r})$$

2139: \end{description}

2140: 

2141: The reader may find  more details on the algebra of SO(3) decomposition of

2142: second order tensor

2143:  in the Appendix ~\ref{sec:general-form}.

2144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2146: \subsection{The Isotropy of the Hierarchy of Equations and

2147: its Consequences}

2148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2149: \label{sec:hierachy}

2150: In this section we follow Ref. \cite{ara99b} in deriving equations of motion

2151: for the

2152: statistical averages of the velocity and pressure fields

2153: differences. We start from the Navier-Stokes equations, and show that

2154: its isotropy implies the isotropy of the equations for the statistical

2155: objects. Finally, we demonstrate the foliation of these equations to

2156: different sectors of $j,m$.

2157: Consider the  Navier-Stokes equations (\ref{NS}) in a bounded domain

2158: $\Omega$.

2159: In principle these equations can be the basis for deriving infinite linear

2160: hierarchy

2161: of equations for the Eulerian correlation functions and to study its

2162: properties

2163: under rotation.

2164: Unfortunately the relevant dynamical time scales are revealed only when

2165: the effect of sweeping is removed. Therefore we choose to work here

2166: with the transformation

2167: proposed in \cite{bel87} in which the flow is observed from the point of

2168: view of one specific fluid particle which is located at ${\bf x}_{0}$ at

2169: time $t_{0}$. Let ${\bf \rho }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|t)$ be the particle's

2170: translation at time $t$:

2171: $$

2172: {\bf \rho }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|t)=\int\limits_{t_{0}}^{t}ds{\bf u}[{\bf x}

2173: _{0}+{\bf \rho }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|s),s]\ . $$

2174: We then redefine the velocity and pressure fields to be those seen from an

2175: inertial frame whose origin sits at the current particle's position:

2176: $$

2177: {\bf v}({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},t) \equiv {\bf u}[{\bf x}+{\bf \rho }(

2178: {\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|t),t]\ , $$

2179: $$\pi ({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},t) \equiv p[{\bf x}+{\bf \rho }({\bf x}

2180: _{0},t_{0}|t),t]\ .$$

2181: Next, we define the differences of these fields:

2182: $$

2183: {\mathcal W}^{\alpha }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime },t)

2184: \equiv v^{\alpha }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},t)-v^{\alpha }({\bf

2185: x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf

2186: x}^{\prime },t)\ , $$

2187: $$

2188: \Pi ({\bf r}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime },t) \equiv \pi (

2189: {\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},t)-\pi ({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x}^{\prime },t)\ .

2190: $$

2191: A straightforward calculation shows that the dynamical equations for $

2192: {\bf {\mathcal W}}$ are:

2193: \begin{eqnarray}

2194: &&\partial _{t}{\mathcal W}^{\alpha }({\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime },t) =-\left(

2195: \partial _{\alpha }+\partial ^{\prime}_{ \alpha }\right) \Pi ({\bf x}

2196: _{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime },t)  \label{eq:WDyn}

2197: +\nu \left( \partial ^{2}+\partial ^{\prime 2}\right) {\mathcal W}^{\alpha

2198: }(

2199: {\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x,x}^{\prime },t)  \nonumber \\

2200: &&-\partial _{\mu }{\mathcal W}^{\mu }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf

2201: x,x}_{0},t){\mathcal

2202: W}

2203: ^{\alpha }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x,x}^{\prime },t)

2204: -\partial _{\mu }^{\prime }{\mathcal W}^{\mu }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x}

2205: ^{\prime }{\bf ,x}_{0},t){\mathcal W}^{\alpha }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x,x}

2206: ^{\prime },t)\ ,  \nonumber \\

2207: &&\partial _{\alpha }{\mathcal W}^{\alpha }({\bf x}_{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},{\bf

2208: x}

2209: ^{\prime },t) =\partial _{\alpha }^{\prime }{\mathcal W}^{\alpha }({\bf x}

2210: _{0},t_{0}|{\bf x},{\bf x}^{\prime },t)=0\ .

2211: \end{eqnarray}

2212: By inspection, $t_{0}$ merely serves as a parameter, and therefore we will

2213: not denote it explicitly in the following discussion. Also, in order to make

2214: the equations easier to understand, let us introduce some shorthand notation

2215: for the variables $({\bf x}_{k},{\bf x}_{k}^{\prime },t_{k})$:

2216: $$

2217: {\bf X}_{k} \equiv ({\bf x}_{k},{\bf x}_{k}^{\prime },t_{k})\ , \quad

2218: X_{k} \equiv (x_{k},x_{k}^{\prime },t_{k})\ , \quad

2219: {\hat{{\bf X}}}_{k} \equiv (\hat{{\bf x}}_{k},\hat{{\bf x}}_{k}^{\prime

2220: })\ .

2221: $$

2222: Using (\ref{eq:WDyn}), we can now derive the dynamical equations for the

2223: statistical moments of ${\bf {\mathcal W}}$,$\Pi $: Let $\left\langle \cdot

2224: \right\rangle $ denote a suitable ensemble averaging. We define two types of

2225: statistical moments:

2226: \begin{eqnarray*}

2227: &&{\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf

2228: X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf

2229: X}_{n}) 

2230: \equiv \left\langle {\mathcal W}^{\alpha _{1}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf

2231: X}_{1})\ldots

2232: {\mathcal W}^{\alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf X}_{n})\right\rangle \ , \\

2233: &&{\mathcal H}^{\alpha _{2}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf

2234: X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf

2235: X}_{n}) 

2236: \equiv \left\langle \Pi (x_{0}|{\bf X}_{1}){\mathcal W}^{\alpha _{2}}({\bf

2237: x}

2238: _{0}|{\bf X}_{2})\ldots {\mathcal W}^{\alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf X}

2239: _{n})\right\rangle \ .

2240: \end{eqnarray*}

2241: Equation (\ref{eq:WDyn}) implies:

2242: \begin{eqnarray}

2243: &&\partial _{t_{1}}{\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf

2244: x}_{0}|{\bf X}

2245: _{1},\ldots ,{\bf X}_{n})

2246: =-\left( \partial _{(x_{1})}^{\alpha _{1}}+\partial _{(x_{1}^{\prime

2247: })}^{\alpha _{1}}\right) {\mathcal H}^{\alpha _{2}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf

2248: x}_{0}|

2249: {\bf X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf X}_{n})  \nonumber \\

2250: &&-\partial _{\mu }^{(x_{1})}{\mathcal F}^{\mu \alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha

2251: _{n}}\left( {\bf x}_{0}|{\tilde{{\bf X}}},{\bf X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf

2252: X}_{n}\right)

2253: -\partial _{\mu }^{(x_{1}^{\prime })}{\mathcal F}^{\mu \alpha _{1}\ldots

2254: \alpha

2255: _{n}}\left( {\bf x}_{0}|{\tilde{{\bf X}}}^{\prime }{\bf ,X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf

2256: X}_{n}\right)   \nonumber \\

2257: &&+\nu \left( \partial _{(x_{1})}^{2}+\partial _{(x_{1}^{\prime

2258: })}^{2}\right) {\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf

2259: X}

2260: _{1},\ldots ,{\bf X}_{n})\ ,  \label{eq:FDyn}

2261: \end{eqnarray}

2262: with ${\tilde{{\bf X}}} \equiv {(}{\bf x}_{0},{\bf x}^{\prime

2263: },t)\;;\;{\tilde{

2264: {\bf X}}}^{\prime }{\equiv (}{\bf x},{\bf x}_{0},t)\ ,$ with the

2265: further constraint:

2266: $$

2267: \partial _{\alpha _{1}}^{(x_{1})}{\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha

2268: _{n}}({\bf x

2269: }_{0}|{\bf X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf X}_{n}) =0\ ,  \qquad

2270: \partial _{\alpha _{1}}^{(x_{1}^{\prime })}{\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots

2271: \alpha

2272: _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf X}_{1},\ldots ,{\bf X}_{n}) =0\ . $$

2273: Equations (\ref{eq:FDyn}),  are linear and homogeneous.

2274: Therefore their solutions form a linear space. The most general solution to

2275: these equations is given by a linear combination of a suitable basis of the

2276: solutions space. To construct a specific solution, we must use the boundary

2277: conditions in order to set the linear weights of the basis solutions. We

2278: shall now show that the isotropy of these equations implies that our

2279: basis of solutions can be constructed such that every solution will have a

2280: definite behavior under rotations (that is, definite $j$ and $m$).

2281:  But before we do that, note that in many aspects the situation

2282: described here is similar to the well-known problem of Laplace equation in a

2283: closed domain $\Omega $:

2284: $$

2285: \nabla ^{2}\Psi =0\, \qquad

2286: \Psi |_{\partial \Omega } =\sigma \ .

2287: $$

2288: The Laplace equation is linear, homogeneous and isotropic. Therefore its

2289: solutions form a linear space. One possible basis for this space is:

2290: $$

2291: \Psi_{jm}({\bf r})\equiv r^{j}Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}})\ ,

2292: $$

2293: in which the solutions have a definite behavior under rotations (belong

2294: to an irreducible representation of $SO(3)$ ). The general solution of the

2295: problem is given as a linear combination of the $\Psi_{jm}({\bf r})$, cf.

2296: Eq. (\ref{scalar-case}).

2297: For a specific problem, we use the value of $\Psi ({\bf r})$ on the boundary

2298: (i.e., we use $\sigma ({\bf r})$) in order to set the values of $a_{l,m}$.

2299: 

2300: To see that the same thing happens with the hierarchy equations

2301:  (\ref{eq:FDyn}), we consider an arbitrary solution

2302: $\{{\B {\mathcal F}}^{(n)},{\B {\mathcal H}}^{(n)}|\;n=2,3,\ldots \}$ of

2303: these

2304: equations. We may write the tensor fields

2305: ${\B{\mathcal F}}^{(n)},{\B {\mathcal H}}^{(n)}$ in terms of a basis ${\bf

2306: B}_{q,jm}$:

2307: \begin{equation}

2308:  \label{def:jmExpansion}

2309: {\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf X}_{1},\ldots

2310: ,{\bf 

2311: X}_{n})  

2312: \equiv \sum_{q,j,m} F_{q,jm}^{(n)}(x_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n})

2313: \B B_{q,jm}^{(n)}(\hat{{\bf x}}_{0},{

2314: \hat{{\bf X}}}_{1},\ldots {\hat{{\bf X}}}_{n})\ ,

2315: \end{equation}

2316: \begin{equation}

2317: {\mathcal H}^{\alpha _{2}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf X}_{1},\ldots

2318: ,{\bf 

2319: X}_{n}) 

2320: \equiv \sum_{q,j,m} H_{q,jm}^{(n)}(x_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n})

2321: \B  B_{q,jm}^{(n-1)}(\hat{{\bf r}}_{0},{

2322: \hat{{\bf X}}}_{1},\ldots {\hat{{\bf X}}}_{n})\ ;

2323: \end{equation}

2324: where here and below we use the shorthand notation, $\B B_{q,jm}^{(n)}$

2325: to denote the SO(3) basis of  $n$th order tensors,

2326:  $ B_{q,jm}^{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n}$.

2327: Now all we have to show is that the pieces of

2328:  ${\B {\mathcal F}}^{(n)},{\B {\mathcal

2329: H}}^{(n)}$ with

2330: definite $j,m$ solve the hierarchy equations {\em by themselves} -

2331: independently of pieces with different $j,m$. The proof of the last

2332: statement is straightforward though somewhat tedious. We therefore only

2333: sketch it in general lines. The isotropy of the hierarchy equations implies

2334: that pieces of ${\B {\mathcal F}}^{(n)},{\B {\mathcal H}}^{(n)}$ with

2335: definite $j,m$,

2336: maintain their

2337: transformations properties under rotation {\em after} the linear and

2338: isotropic operations of the equation have been performed. For example, if $

2339: {\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha _{n}}({\bf x}_{0}|{\bf X}_{1},\ldots

2340: ,{\bf X}

2341: _{n})$ belongs to the irreducible representation $(j,m)$, then so will the

2342: tensor fields: 

2343: $

2344: \partial _{\alpha _{i}}^{(x_{k})}{\mathcal F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha

2345: _{n}},

2346: \partial _{\alpha _{i}}^{(x_{k})}\partial_{\alpha _{i}}^{(x_{k})}{\mathcal

2347: F}^{\alpha _{1}\ldots \alpha

2348: _{n}},

2349: $

2350: although, they may belong to different ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ spaces

2351: (i.e., have one less or one more indices). Therefore, if we choose the

2352: bases $\left\{ {\bf B}_{q,jm}^{(n)}\right\} $ to be orthonormal, plug

2353: the expansion (\ref {def:jmExpansion}) into the hierarchy equations

2354: equations (\ref{eq:FDyn}), and take the inner product with ${\bf

2355: B}_{q,jm}^{(n)}$, we

2356: will obtain new equations for the scalar functions

2357: $F_{q,jm}^{(n)},H_{q,jm}^{(n)}$:

2358: \begin{eqnarray}

2359: &&\partial _{t_{1}}F_{q,jm}^{(n)}(r_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n})

2360: =\nonumber\\&&-\sum_{q^{\prime }}\left\langle \left( \partial

2361: _{(x_{1})}^{\alpha

2362: _{1}}+\partial _{(x_{1}^{\prime })}^{\alpha _{1}}\right) H_{q^{\prime

2363: }jm}^{(n)}(r_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}){\bf B}_{q^{\prime }jm}^{(n-1)},{\bf B}

2364: _{q,jm}^{(n)}\right\rangle   \label{eq:ScalarDyn} \\

2365: &&-\sum_{q^{\prime }}\left\langle \partial _{\mu }^{(x_{1})}F_{q^{\prime

2366: }jm}^{(n+1)}(r_{0},\tilde{X},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}){\bf B}_{q^{\prime

2367: }jm}^{(n+1)},{\bf B}_{q,jm}^{(n)}\right\rangle\nonumber\\&&

2368: -\sum_{q^{\prime }}\left\langle \partial _{\mu }^{(x_{1}^{\prime

2369: })}F_{q^{\prime }jm}^{(n+1)}(r_{0},\tilde{X}^{\prime },X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n})

2370: {\bf B}_{q^{\prime }jm}^{(n+1)},{\bf B}_{q,jm}^{(n)}\right\rangle

2371: \nonumber

2372: \\

2373: &&+\nu \sum_{q^{\prime }}\left\langle \left( \partial

2374: _{(x_{1})}^{2}+\partial _{(x_{1}^{\prime })}^{2}\right) F_{q^{\prime

2375: }jm}^{(n)}(r_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}){\bf B}_{q^{\prime }jm}^{(n)},{\bf B}

2376: _{q,jm}^{(n)}\right\rangle ,  \nonumber

2377: \end{eqnarray}

2378: \begin{eqnarray}

2379: \sum_{q^{\prime }}\left\langle \partial _{\alpha _{1}}^{(x_{1})}F_{q^{\prime

2380: }jm}^{(n)}(x_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}){\bf B}_{q^{\prime }jm}^{(n)},{\bf B}

2381: _{q,jm}^{(n-1)}\right\rangle  &=&0\ ,  \label{eq:ScalarIncomp} \\

2382: \sum_{q^{\prime }}\left\langle \partial _{\alpha _{1}}^{(x_{1}^{\prime

2383: })}F_{q^{\prime }jm}^{(n)}(r_{0},X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}){\bf B}_{q^{\prime

2384: }jm}^{(n)},{\bf B}_{q,jm}^{(n-1)}\right\rangle  &=&0\ .  \nonumber

2385: \end{eqnarray}

2386: Note that in the above equations, $\left\langle \cdot \right\rangle $ denote

2387: the inner-product in the ${\mathcal S}_{p}^{n}$ spaces. Also, the sums over

2388: $

2389: q^{\prime },j^{\prime },m^{\prime }$ from (\ref{def:jmExpansion}) was

2390: reduced to a sum over $q^{\prime }$ only - due to the isotropy. We thus see

2391: explicitly from (\ref{eq:ScalarDyn},\ref{eq:ScalarIncomp}) the decoupling of

2392: the equations for different $j,m$.\\

2393: At this point we remind the reader that in the case of the most used

2394: statistical objects

2395: in the analysis of experimental and numerical data are the

2396: longitudinal $n$th order structure functions:

2397: $$

2398: S^{(n)}(\B r) = \langle (\delta u_{\ell}(\B r))^n \rangle .

2399: $$

2400: For these objects the basis functions are simply the spherical harmonics

2401: and the SO(3) decomposition reads:

2402: \be

2403: S^{(n)}(\B r) = \sum_{j,m} S^{(n)}_{jm}(r) Y_{jm}(\hat{\B r}).

2404: \label{eq:fundamental}

2405: \ee

2406: A question of major interest for all that follows are the numerical values

2407: of the scaling 

2408: exponents which are defined by the power laws

2409: $$

2410: S^{(n)}_{jm}(r) \propto r^{\zeta_j^{(n)}} $$

2411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2412: \subsection{Dimensional  Analysis of Anisotropic Fluctuations}

2413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2414: \label{sec:dim_ana}

2415: The actual calculation of  scaling exponents in the anisotropic

2416: sectors is difficult, and  will be considered in the rest of this

2417: review. It is worthwhile to have a phenomenological guess based on

2418: dimensional analysis. Unfortunately, once anisotropies are considered,

2419: dimensional considerations becomes tricky.  Historically, the first

2420: successful attempt to introduce dimensional considerations in

2421: anisotropic turbulence was the  approach discussed in

2422: Sect.~\ref{sec:lumley}. There, the key role was played by the large-scale

2423: mean-shear. However this work is limited to the analysis of second order

2424: correlations, without discriminating among

2425:  different $j$ sectors. In  light of the SO(3)

2426: decomposition it should be considered as a prediction for

2427: $\zeta_{2}^{(2)}$.

2428:  Another  dimensional argument was presented in

2429: \cite{bif02} extending the consideration of Sec.~\ref{sec:lumley}.

2430:  This argument takes  into

2431: account also the particular angular structure entering in the

2432: interaction between small-scale fluctuations and large-scale shear.

2433:  By decomposing the velocity field, $\B{u}$,

2434:  in a small-scale component, $\B{v}$, and a large-scale

2435: anisotropic component, $\B{U}$, one finds the following equation for

2436: the time evolution of $\B{v}$:

2437: $$

2438: \partial_t v_{\alpha} + v_{\beta}\partial_{\beta} v_{\alpha} +

2439: U_{\beta}\partial_{\beta} v_{\alpha} + v_{\beta}\partial_{\beta}

2440: U_{\alpha} = -\partial_{\alpha} p + \nu\Delta v_{\alpha}.

2441: $$

2442: The major effect of the large-scale field is given by the

2443: instantaneous shear $\partial_{\beta} U_{\alpha}$ which acts as an

2444: anisotropic forcing term on small scales.

2445:  We can write the balance

2446: equation for two

2447: point quantities $\la v_{\delta}(\Bx')v_{\alpha}(\Bx)\ra$ in the

2448: stationary regime:

2449: $$

2450: \la v_{\delta}(\Bx') v_{\beta}(\Bx)

2451:  \partial_{\beta} v_{\alpha}(\Bx) \ra \sim \la

2452: \partial_{\mu} U_{\alpha}

2453: v_{\delta}(\Bx') v_{\mu}(\Bx) \ra.

2454: $$

2455: The shear

2456: term is a large-scale ``slow'' quantity and therefore, as far as

2457: scaling properties are concerned, can be safely estimated as: $\la

2458: \partial_{\mu} U_{\alpha}

2459:  v_{\delta}(\Bx') v_{\mu}(\Bx) \ra \sim

2460: D_{\alpha \mu} \la v_{\delta}(\Bx')v_{\mu}(\Bx)

2461: \ra$. The tensor $D_{\alpha \beta}$ is associated to the joint

2462: probability to have a given shear and a given small scale velocity

2463: configuration. The $D_{\alpha \beta}$ being a constant tensor can possess at

2464: most  angular momentum

2465: up to $j=2$.

2466: Similarly for three point  quantities

2467: we may write: $\la v v v \partial v \ra \sim \la \partial U  vvv  \ra$,

2468: which can

2469: be easily generalized to velocity correlation of any order.  One may

2470: therefore argue, by using simple composition

2471: of angular momenta, ($j= 2 \oplus j-2$), the following dimensional

2472: matching for structure functions in different anisotropic sectors:

2473: \be {S}^{(n)}_{jm}(r) \;\sim\; r\, |D| \, \cdot \,

2474: S_{j-2,m}^{(n-1)}(r),

2475: \label{eq:gen}

2476: \ee

2477: where $ S_{j,m}^{(n)}(r)$ is a shorthand notation for the projection

2478: on the $j$-{\it th} sector of the $n$-{\it th} order correlation

2479: function introduced in the previous section, ${F}^{(n)}_{q jm}(r)$.

2480: In (\ref{eq:gen}) with $|D|$ we denote the typical intensity of the

2481: shear term $D_{\alpha \beta}$ in the $j=2$ sector.  From

2482: Eq. (\ref{eq:gen}) one can obtain higher $j$ exponents of the higher

2483: order structure functions from the lower order structure functions of

2484: lower anisotropic sectors which appear on the RHS. For example, the

2485: dimensional prediction for the third order scaling exponent in the

2486: $j=2$ sector, $\zeta^{(3)}_2$ can be obtained by the

2487: matching: $S_{2,m}^{(3)}(r) \sim r\, |D| S_{0,m}^{(2)}(r) \sim

2488: r^{\zeta_{2}^{(3)}}$. By using the same argument and the known scaling of

2489: the third order correlation for $j=0,2$, the scaling exponents of the

2490: fourth order correlation for $j=2,4$ can be estimated. The following

2491: expression is readily obtained for any order\,:

2492: \begin{equation}

2493: \zeta_{j}^{(n)}=\frac{(n+j)}{3} \quad \mbox{(dimensional prediction).}

2494: \label{lumleygen}

2495: \end{equation}

2496:  This  formula coincides with the prediction (\ref{eq:Lumley})

2497: for $n=2$ and $j=2$. We will see below that

2498: both measurements and closure calculations exhibit

2499: exponents which are anomalous, i.e.

2500: different from these dimensional predictions.

2501: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2503: \section{Exactly Solvable Models}

2504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2505: \label{chap:analytical}

2506: In this section we review the work done on anomalous scaling in

2507: the anisotropic sectors of exactly solvable models. The first of

2508: these models is the Kraichnan model of passive scalar advection

2509: in which the velocity field is rapidly varying in time

2510: \cite{kra68,kra94,fal01}. This

2511: model offers detailed understanding of the anomalous scaling in all the

2512: anisotropic sectors both from the Lagrangian and the Eulerian

2513: points of view. The scaling exponents can be calculated however

2514: only in perturbation theory. The second model that we consider is

2515: of passive advection of a magnetic field \cite{ver96}. In this case one can

2516: compute non-perturbatively  the scaling exponents of the second order

2517: correlation function in all the sectors of the symmetry group.

2518: These two models show that the spectrum of scaling exponents is

2519: discrete and strictly increasing as a function of $j$. If this

2520: is true for systems with pressure, like the Navier-Stokes

2521: equation, it may lead to problems of convergence of the integrals

2522: induced by the existence of the pressure terms. To this aim we

2523: review below a third exactly solvable model in which pressure is

2524: used explicitly to keep an advected vector solenoidal.It was shown

2525: that also here the spectrum is discrete and strictly increasing,

2526: and it was explained how the putative divergences are avoided. The

2527: mechanism discovered here is most likely also operating in the

2528: Navier-Stokes case. The last model reviewed in this section

2529: is the the second order structure function in the Navier-Stokes problem,

2530: linearized for small anisotropies. Also in this case we find

2531: a discrete spectrum of strictly increasing scaling exponents

2532: as a function of $j$.

2533: Most of the results here presented can also be reproduced within

2534: the Renormalization Group approach. We do not enter here in this

2535: subject which would deserve a whole review by itself.

2536:  The interested reader can find the most important results

2537: for passive scalar advection in \cite{anto01,anto01a}, for magnetic fields

2538:  in \cite{anto00,anto99} and  for passive vectors in \cite{anto03}.\\

2539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2540: \subsection{Anomalous Scaling in the Anisotropic Sectors

2541: of the Kraichnan Model  of Passive Scalar Advection}

2542: \label{passcalar}

2543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2544:  Kraichnan's model of passive scalar advection in

2545: which the driving (Gaussian) velocity field has fast temporal

2546: decorrelation turned out to be a very important case model for

2547: understanding the anomalous scaling behavior in turbulent

2548: advection, including the anisotropic sectors of turbulent scalar fields.

2549: We review here the derivation that shows that the solutions of the Kraichnan

2550: equation for the

2551: $n$ order correlation functions foliate into sectors that are

2552: classified by the irreducible representations of the SO($d$)

2553: symmetry group. A discrete spectrum of universal

2554: anomalous exponents is found, with a different exponent characterizing the

2555: scaling behavior in every sector. Generically the correlation

2556: functions and structure functions appear as sums over all these

2557: contributions, with non-universal amplitudes which are determined

2558: by the anisotropic boundary conditions. The isotropic sector is

2559: always characterized by the smallest exponent, and therefore for

2560: sufficiently small scales local isotropy is always restored.

2561: %We start the discussion with a Lagrangian calculation that is not

2562: %aimed at computing the scaling exponents, but to reveal the

2563: %intimate connection between the anomalous exponents and the

2564: %dynamics of configurations of Lagrangian trajectories.

2565: We start by

2566:  presenting  the Eulerian calculation which results in actual values

2567: of the scaling exponents (in perturbation theory) \cite{ara00}. The Eulerian

2568: calculation of the anomalous exponents is done in two

2569: complementary ways. In the first they are obtained from the

2570: analysis of the correlation functions of {\em gradient fields}.

2571: The theory of these functions involves the control of logarithmic

2572: divergences which translate into anomalous scaling with the ratio

2573: of the inner {\em and} the outer scales appearing in the final

2574: result. In the second way one computes the exponents from the zero

2575: modes of the Kraichnan equation for the correlation functions of

2576: the scalar field itself. In this case the renormalization scale

2577: is the outer scale. The two approaches lead to the same scaling

2578: exponents for the same statistical objects, illuminating the

2579: relative role of the outer and inner scales as renormalization

2580: scales. To clarify this further,  Ref.~\cite{ara00} presented

2581: an exact derivation of

2582: fusion rules which govern the small scale asymptotic of the

2583: correlation

2584: functions in all the sectors of the symmetry group and in all

2585: dimensions. The purpose of the Eulerian calculation is twofold. On the one

2586: hand we are interested in the effects of anisotropy on the

2587: universal aspects of scaling behavior in turbulent systems. On the other

2588: hand

2589: we are interested in clarifying the relationship between

2590: ultraviolet and infrared anomalies in turbulent systems.

2591: The two issues discussed in this subsection have an importance

2592: that transcends the particular example that we treat here in

2593: detail. Having below a theory of anomalous scaling in all the various

2594: sectors of

2595: the symmetry group allows us to explain clearly the relationship

2596: between the two renormalization scales and the anomalous

2597: exponents that are implied by their existence.

2598:  Since we expect

2599: that Kolmogorov type theories, which assume that no

2600: renormalization scale appears in the theory, are generally

2601: invalidated by the appearance of both the outer and the inner

2602: scales as renormalization scales, the clarification of the

2603: relation between the two is important also for other cases of

2604: turbulent statistics.

2605: 

2606: The central quantitative result of the Eulerian calculation is the

2607: expression for the scaling exponent $\xi^{(n)}_{j}$ which is

2608: associated with the scaling behavior of the $n$-order correlation

2609: function (or structure function) of the scalar field in the

2610: $j$'th sector of the symmetry group. In other words, this is

2611: the scaling exponent of the projection of the correlation

2612: function on the $j$'th irreducible representation of the

2613: SO($d$) symmetry group, with $n$ and $j$ taking on even values

2614: only, $n=0,2, \dots$ and $j=0,2,\dots$:

2615: \begin{equation}

2616: \xi^{(n)}_{j}= n-\epsilon\Big[\frac{n(n+d)}{2(d+2)}

2617: -\frac{(d+1)j(j+d-2)}{2(d+2)(d-1)}\Big] +O(\epsilon^2) \ .

2618: \label{eq:perturbative}

2619: \end{equation}

2620: The result is valid for any even $j\le n$, and to $O(\epsilon)$

2621: where $\epsilon$ is the scaling exponent of the eddy diffusivity

2622: in the Kraichnan model (and see below for details). In the

2623: isotropic sector ($j=0$) we recover the  result of

2624: \cite{ber96}. It is noteworthy that for higher values of $j$

2625: the discrete spectrum is a strictly increasing function of

2626: $j$. This is important, since it shows that for diminishing

2627: scales the higher order scaling exponents become irrelevant, and

2628: for sufficiently small scales only the isotropic contribution

2629: survives. As the scaling exponent appear in power laws of the

2630: type $(r/\Lambda)^\xi$, with $\Lambda$ being some typical outer scale

2631: and $r \ll \Lambda$, the larger is the exponent, the faster is the

2632: decay of the contribution as the scale $r$ diminishes. This is

2633: precisely how the isotropization of the small scales takes place,

2634: and the higher order exponents describe the rate of

2635: isotropization. Nevertheless for intermediate scales or for finite

2636: values of the Reynolds and Peclet numbers the lower lying scaling

2637: exponents will appear in measured quantities, and understanding

2638: their role and disentangling the various contributions cannot be

2639: avoided.

2640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2641: \subsubsection{Kraichnan's Model of Turbulent Advection and the

2642: Statistical Objects} \label{s:Kra} The model of passive scalar

2643: advection with rapidly decorrelating velocity field was introduced in

2644: \cite{kra68}. In recent years

2645: \cite{gaw95,che95,ber96,fai96,kra94,lvo94c,ben97} it was shown to be a

2646: fruitful case model for understanding multi-scaling in the statistical

2647: description of turbulent fields. The basic dynamical equation in this

2648: model is for a scalar field $T({\B r},t)$ advected by a random

2649: velocity field ${\B u}({\B x},t)$:

2650: \begin{equation}

2651: \label{advect}

2652:         \big[\partial_t  - \kappa_0 \nabla^2  +

2653:         {\B u}({\B x},t) \cdot {\bf \nabla}\big]

2654:          T({\B x},t) = f({\B x},t)\ .

2655: \end{equation}

2656: In this equation $f({\B x},t)$ is the forcing.  In Kraichnan's

2657: model the advecting field ${\B u}({\B x},t)$ as well as the

2658: forcing field $f({\B x},t)$ are taken to be Gaussian, time and

2659: space homogeneous, and delta-correlated in time:

2660: $$

2661:         \overline{  f({\B x},t)  f({\B x}',t') } =

2662:            \Phi({\B x}-{\B x}')  \delta(t - t')\,,  \quad

2663:  \langle u^\alpha({\B x},t) u^\beta({\B x}',t') \rangle

2664: = \C W^{\alpha\beta}({\B x}-{\B x}')  \delta(t - t').

2665: $$

2666: Here the symbols ~$\overline{\cdots}$~ and ~$\langle \cdots

2667: \rangle$~ stand for independent ensemble averages with respect to

2668: the statistics of $f$ and ${\B u}$ which are given {\em a priori}. We

2669: will study this model in the limit of large Peclet (Pe) number,

2670: Pe$\equiv U_{\Lambda} \Lambda/\kappa_0$, where $U_\Lambda$ is the

2671: typical size of the velocity fluctuations on the outer scale $\Lambda$

2672: of the velocity field. We stress that the forcing is {\em not} assumed

2673: isotropic, and actually the main goal of this section is to study the

2674: statistic of the scalar field under anisotropic forcing.

2675: 

2676: The correlation function of the advecting velocity needs further

2677: discussion.  It is customary to introduce $\C W^{\alpha \beta}(\B

2678: r)$ via its $\B k$-representation: \be

2679: \label{W1} \C

2680: W^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)=\frac{\e\, D}{\Omega_d} \int \limits

2681: _{\Lambda ^{-1}}^{\lambda^{-1}}     \frac{  d^d p} {p^{d+\e}} \,

2682: P^{\alpha\beta}(\B p)\,

2683: \exp (-i \B p\cdot \B r)\,, \quad

2684:  P^{\alpha\beta}(\B p) = \Big[\delta_{\alpha\beta}

2685: -\frac {p^\alpha p^\beta}{p^2} \Big]  \ee

2686:  where

2687: $P^{\alpha\beta}(\B p)$ is the transversal projector, $\Omega_d=(d-1)

2688: \Omega(d)/d $ and $\Omega(d)$ is the volume of the sphere in $d$

2689: dimensions. Equation (\ref{W1}) introduces the four important parameters

2690: that determine the

2691: statistics of the driving velocity field: $\Lambda$ and $\lambda$ are

2692: the outer and inner scales of the driving velocity field

2693: respectively. The scaling exponent $\e$ characterizes the correlation

2694: functions of the velocity field, lying in the interval $[0,2]$. The

2695: factor $D$ is related to the correlation function  as

2696: follows:

2697: \be\label{W3} \C W^{\alpha\beta}(0)=D\delta_{\a\b}(\Lambda^\e

2698: -\lambda^\epsilon)\ . \ee The most important property of the driving

2699: velocity field from the point of view of the scaling properties of the

2700: passive scalar is the  ``eddy diffusivity" tensor \cite{kra68}

2701: \be

2702: \label{eddy-diff} K^{\alpha\beta}({\B r})

2703: \equiv   2[\C W^{\alpha\beta}(0)-\C W^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)]\ . \ee

2704: The scaling properties of the scalar depend sensitively on the

2705: scaling exponent $\e$ that characterizes the $r$ dependence of

2706: $K^{\alpha\beta}({\B r})

2707: \propto   [\Lambda^\e

2708:  -\lambda^\epsilon]\delta_{\alpha\beta}$, for

2709: $ r \gg \Lambda$, namely:

2710: \be

2711: K^{\alpha\beta}({\B r})\propto  r^\e

2712:  \Big[\delta_{\alpha\beta} -\frac{\epsilon}{d-1+\epsilon}{r^\alpha

2713:  r^\beta

2714: \over r^2}\Big], \quad \lambda\ll r\ll\Lambda \ .

2715: \label{kappa1}

2716: \ee

2717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2718: \subsubsection{The Statistical Objects}

2719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2720: In the statistical theory we are interested in the power laws

2721: characterizing the $r$ dependence of the various correlation and

2722: response functions of $T({\B x},t)$ and its gradients.  We will focus

2723: on three types of quantities:

2724: 

2725: 1) ``Unfused" structure functions of $T({\B x},t)$ are defined as

2726: \begin{eqnarray}

2727: \label{Sunfused}F_T^{(n)}(\B x_1,\B x'_1,\dots \B x_{n},\B x'_{n})

2728: &\equiv &\langle [T(\B x_1,t)-T(\B x'_1,t)]\\ \nonumber \times [T(\B

2729: x_2,t)-T(\B x'_2,t)]&\dots& [T(\B x_n,t)-T(\B x'_n,t)]\rangle \ ,

2730: \end{eqnarray}

2731: and in particular the standard ``fused" structure functions are

2732: $$

2733:        S_T^{(n)}({\B r}) \equiv \langle [ T({\B x}+{\B r}, t) - T({\B

2734:         x}, t)]^{n} \rangle \ .

2735: $$

2736: In writing this equation we used the fact that the stationary and

2737: space-homogeneous statistics of the velocity and the forcing fields

2738: lead to a stationary and space homogeneous ensemble of the scalar

2739: $T$. If the statistics is also isotropic, then $S^{(n)}_T(\B r)$ becomes a

2740: function of $r$ only, independent of the direction of ${\B r}$.  The

2741: ``isotropic scaling exponents'' $\xi^{(n)}_0$ of the structure functions

2742: $$

2743:         S_T^{(n)}(r) \propto r^{\xi^{(n)}_0} ,

2744: $$

2745: characterize their $r$ dependence in the limit of large Pe, when

2746: $r$ is in the ``inertial" interval of scales. This range is

2747: $\lambda,\eta\ll r\ll\Lambda, \,L$ where

2748: $\eta = \Lambda \left(\frac{\kappa_0}{D}\right) ^{1/\epsilon}$

2749: is the dissipative

2750: scale of the scalar field,.

2751: When the ensemble is not isotropic we define the exponents

2752: (\ref{eq:perturbative})

2753: by   expanding $S^{(n)}_T(\B r)$  according to:

2754: $$

2755: S^{(n)}_T(\B r) = \sum_{jm} S^{(n)}_{T,jm}(r) Y_{jm}(\hat{\Br}) \ ; \qquad

2756: S^{(n)}_{T,jm}(r) \propto  r^{\xi^{(n)}_j}

2757: $$

2758: 2) In addition to structure functions we are also interested in

2759: the simultaneous $n\,$th order correlation functions of the

2760: temperature field which is time independent in stationary

2761: statistics: 

2762: \be 

2763: \label{Fn} \C T^{(n)}(\{\B x_l \}) \equiv \la T(\B

2764: x_1,t)\,T(\B x_2,t)\dots T(\B x_{n},t)\ra \,,

2765: \ee 

2766: where we used

2767: the shorthand notation $\{\B x_l \}$ for the whole set of

2768: arguments of $n$th order correlation function $\C T^{(n)}$, $\B

2769: x_1,\B x_2\dots \B x_{n}$.

2770: 

2771: 3)  Finally, we are interested in correlation functions of the

2772: gradient field $\B \nabla T$. There can be a number of these, and

2773: we denote 

2774: $$ \C H^{\alpha_1\dots \alpha_n} (\{\B x_l\}) \equiv

2775: \Big\langle \prod_{i=1}^{n} \Big[\nabla^{\a_i}T(\B x_i,t)\Big]\Big\rangle

2776:  \,, $$

2777: The tensor $\C H^{\alpha_1 \dots \alpha_n}$

2778:  can be contracted in various ways. For example,

2779: binary contractions $\alpha_1=\alpha_2, \alpha_3=\alpha_4$, {\em

2780: etc.}  with $\B x_1=\B x_2, \B x_3=\B x_4$ {\em etc.}  produces

2781: the correlation functions of dissipation field $|\B \nabla T|^2$.

2782: Of particular interest is the coordinate independent tensor $\B H^{(n)}$

2783: obtained by taking

2784: all $\B x_i=\B x$:

2785: \begin{equation}

2786: H^{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_n}={\C H}^{\alpha_1\dots \alpha_n} (\{\B x_i=\B

2787: x\}) \ . \label{defHn}

2788: \end{equation}

2789: 

2790: When the ensemble is not isotropic we need to take into account

2791: the angular dependence of $\B x$, and the scaling behavior

2792: consists of multiple contributions arising from anisotropic

2793: effects. 

2794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2795: \subsubsection{The Eulerian calculation}

2796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2797: The correlation functions of the gradient field $\B H^{(n)}$ of Eq.

2798: (\ref{defHn}) are tensors independent of the coordinates. Nevertheless

2799: their calculation is somewhat heavy, and we do not reproduce it here;

2800: we refer the reader to \cite{ara00} where the calculation is

2801: presented in full detail. The final result of the calculation is for

2802: the projection of $\B H^{(n)}$ onto the $j$ sector of the SO(3)

2803: symmetry group reads

2804: \begin{equation}

2805: \B H^{(n)}_{j}\propto \left(\frac{\Lambda}{\eta}\right)^{n-\xi^{(n)}_j} \ ,

2806: \label{Hscale}

2807: \end{equation}

2808: where the proportionality constant is a tensor in the limit $\eta \ll

2809: \Lambda$.  The exponents $\xi^{(n)}_j$ are the same as those found

2810: below for the correlation function in which all the scales are within

2811: the inertial range. The appearance of both renormalization lengths

2812: and the identity of the exponents in inertial and gradient objects is

2813: a consequence of the fusion rules that were  explored in \cite{ara00}

2814: with

2815: some care.

2816: The correlation functions ${\mathcal T}^{(n)}$ satisfy the Kraichnan's

2817: equation \cite{kra68}

2818: \begin{eqnarray}

2819:         & & \Big[- \kappa_0 \sum_{i=1}^{n} \nabla^2_i+ \frac{1}{2}

2820:         \sum_{i,k=1}^{n} K^{\a\b} (\B x_i-\B

2821:         x_k)\nabla^\a_i\nabla^\b_k \Big] {\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{{ \B x}_{l}

2822:         \}) \nonumber \\ &&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\{i\ne k\}=1}^{n}

2823:         \Phi({\B x}_i-{\B x}_k) {\mathcal T}^{(n-2)}(\{{\B x}_l\}_{l\ne

2824:         i,k}) \,,

2825: \label{bob1}

2826: \end{eqnarray}

2827: where $\{{\B x}_{l}\}_{l\ne i,k}$ is the set off all ${\B x}_{l}$

2828: with $l$ from 1 to $n$, except of $l= i$ and $l= j$. Substituting

2829: $ K^{\a\b} (\B x)$ from Eqs.~(\ref{W3},

2830: \ref{eddy-diff})  one gets:

2831: \begin{eqnarray}

2832:         & & \Big[- \kappa \sum_{i=1}^{n} \nabla^2_i+ \sum_{\{i\ne

2833:         k\}=1}^{n} \C W^{\a\b} (\B x_i-\B x_k)\nabla^\a_i\nabla^\b_k

2834:         \Big] {\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{{ \B x}_{l} \}) \nonumber \\

2835:         &&=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\{i\ne k\}=1}^{n} \Phi({\B x}_i-{\B x}_k)

2836:         {\mathcal T}^{(n-2)}(\{{\B x}_l\}_{l\ne i,k}) \,,

2837: \label{bob0}

2838: \end{eqnarray}

2839: where $

2840:  \kappa =\kappa _0+

2841: D[\Lambda^\e-\lambda^\epsilon]$.

2842:  Here we used that in space

2843: homogeneous case $ \sum_{i=1}^{n} \B \nabla_i=0$ and therefore

2844: $$\Big|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \B \nabla_i\Big|^2=

2845: \sum_{i=1}^{n}\nabla^2_i+\sum_{\{i\ne k\}=1}^{n}

2846: \nabla^\a_i\nabla^\b_k=0\ .

2847: $$

2848: 

2849: In this section we consider the zero-modes of Eq.~(\ref{bob1}). In

2850: other words we seek solutions $Z^{(n)}(\{\B x_l\})$ which in the

2851: inertial interval solve the homogeneous equation

2852: \begin{equation}

2853: \sum_{i\ne k=1}^{n}

2854:        K^{\a\b} (\B x_i-\B x_k)\nabla^\a_i\nabla^\b_k

2855:        Z^{(n)}(\{{ \B x}_{l} \}) =0 \ . \label{zeromodes}

2856: \end{equation}

2857: We allow anisotropy on the large scales. Since all the operators here

2858: are isotropic and the equation is linear, the solution space foliate

2859: into sectors ${j,m}$ corresponding the the irreducible

2860: representations of the SO($d$) symmetry group.  Accordingly we write

2861: the wanted solution in the form

2862: $$

2863:  Z^{(n)}(\{{ \B r}_{l} \})= \sum_{j,m}Z^{(n)}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{l}

2864: \})

2865: \ , $$

2866: where $Z^{(n)}_{jm}$ are functions composed of irreducible

2867: representations of SO($d$) with definite $j,m$. Each of these

2868: components is now expanded in $\epsilon$. In other words, we write, in

2869: the notation of Ref.\cite{ber96},

2870: $$

2871: Z^{(n)}_{jm} =E^{(n)}_{jm}+\epsilon

2872: G^{(n)}_{jm}+O(\epsilon^2) \ .

2873: $$

2874: For $\epsilon=0$ Eq.~(\ref{zeromodes}) simplifies to

2875: \begin{equation}

2876: \sum_{i=1}^{n} \nabla_i^2 E^{(n)}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{l} \}) =0

2877: \ , \label{EqE}

2878: \end{equation}

2879: for any value of $j,m$. Next we expand the operator in

2880: Eq.~(\ref{zeromodes}) in $\epsilon$ and collect the terms of

2881: $O(\epsilon)$:

2882: \begin{equation}

2883: \sum_{i=1}^{n} \nabla_i^2 G^{(n)}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{l}

2884: \})=V_{n}E^{(n)}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{l} \}) \ , \label{firsto}

2885: \end{equation}

2886: where $\epsilon V_{n}$ is the first order term in the expansion

2887: of the operator in (\ref{zeromodes}):

2888: \begin{equation}

2889: V_{n} \equiv \sum_{i\ne

2890: k=1}^{n}\Big[\delta^{\alpha\beta}\log(r_{ik})-{r_{ik}^\alpha

2891: r_{ik}^\beta\over

2892: (d-1)r_{ik}^2}\Big]\nabla_i^\alpha\nabla_k^\beta \ , \label{defVn}

2893: \end{equation}

2894: where $\B r_{ik}\equiv \B x_i-\B x_k$.

2895: 

2896: In solving Eq.~(\ref{EqE}) we are led by the following

2897: considerations: we want scale invariant solutions, which are

2898: powers of $\B r_{ik}$. We want analytic solutions, and thus we

2899: are limited to polynomials. Finally we want solutions that

2900: involve all the $n$ coordinates for the function

2901: $E^{(n)}_{jm}$; solutions with fewer coordinates do not

2902: contribute to the structure functions (\ref{Sunfused}).  To see

2903: this note that the structure function is a linear combination of

2904: correlation functions. This linear combination can be represented

2905: in terms of the difference operator $\delta_l(\B x,\B x')$

2906: defined by:

2907: \begin{equation}

2908: \delta_l(\B x,\B x') {\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{\B x_k\})\equiv {\mathcal

2909: T}^{(n)}(\{\B

2910: x_k\})|_{\B x_l=\B x} -{\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{\B x_k\})|_{\B x_l=\B x'} \ .

2911: \label{diffop}

2912: \end{equation}

2913: Then,

2914: \begin{equation}

2915: S_T^{(n)}(\B x_1,\B x'_1\dots \B x_{n}\B x'_{n}) = \prod_l \delta_l(\B

2916: x_l,\B x'_l) {\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{\B x_k\}) \ . \label{SinF}

2917: \end{equation}

2918: 

2919: Accordingly, if ${\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{\B x_k\})$ does not depend on $\B

2920: x_i$, then $\delta_i (\B r_i,\B r'_i){\mathcal T}^{(n)}(\{\B r_k\})=0$

2921: identically. Since the difference operators commute, we can have

2922: no contribution to the structure functions from parts of ${\mathcal

2923: T}^{(n)}$ that depend on less than $n$ coordinates. Finally we want the

2924: minimal polynomial because higher order ones are negligible in

2925: the limit $r_{ik}\ll \Lambda$. Accordingly, $E^{(n)}_{jm}$

2926: with $j\le n$ is a polynomial of order $n$.  Following the procedure

2927: outlined in Appendix~(\ref{app:d-dim})

2928:  we can write the most general form of

2929: $E^{(n)}_{jm}$, up to an arbitrary factor, as

2930: \begin{equation}

2931: E^{(n)}_{jm}=x_1^{\alpha_1}\dots x_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}

2932: B^{\alpha_1\dots \alpha_{n}}_{n,jm} +[\dots] \ ,

2933: \end{equation}

2934: where $[\dots]$ stands for all the terms that contain less than

2935: $n$ coordinates; these do not appear in the structure functions

2936: but maintain the translational invariance of our quantities. Note that in

2937: this case we carry

2938: the index $n$ in the tensor basis functions since the theory mixes basis

2939: functions

2940: of different orders. The

2941: appearance of the tensor $B^{\alpha_1\dots

2942: \alpha_n}_{n,jm}$ 

2943:  is justified by the fact

2944: that $E^{(n)}_{jm}$ must be symmetric to permutations of any

2945: pair of coordinates on the one hand, and it has to belong to the

2946: $jm$ sector on the other hand. This requires the

2947: appearance of the fully symmetric tensor (\ref{Birr}).

2948: In light of Eqs.~(\ref{firsto}-\ref{defVn}) we seek solution for

2949: $G^{(n)}_{j} (\{{ \B r}_{k}\})$ of the form

2950: \begin{equation}

2951: G^{(n)}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{k}\})=\sum_{i\ne

2952: l}H^{il}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{k}\}) \log(r_{il})

2953: +H_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{k}\}) \ , \label{ansatzG}

2954: \end{equation}

2955: where $H^{il}_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{k}\})$ and

2956: $H_{jm}(\{{ \B r}_{k}\})$ are polynomials of degree $n$.

2957: The latter is fully symmetric in the coordinates.  The former is

2958: symmetric in $r_i$, $r_l$ and separately in all the other

2959: $\{r_k\}_{k\ne l,i}$.

2960: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{ansatzG}) into Eq.~(\ref{firsto}) and

2961: collecting terms of the same type yields three equations:

2962: \begin{eqnarray}

2963: &&\sum_i \nabla_i^2 H^{lk}_{jm}=\nabla_l\cdot \nabla_k

2964: E_{jm}^{(n)}\ ,

2965: \label{zero1}\\

2966: &&\big[d-2+\B r_{lk}\cdot (\B \nabla_l-\B

2967: \nabla_k)\big]H^{lk}_{jm} +\frac{r_{lk}^\alpha

2968: r_{lk}^\beta \nabla_l^\alpha \nabla_k ^\beta}{2d-2} E_{jm}^{(n)}

2969: =-\frac{r_{lk}^2 K_{jm}^{lk}}{2}\ ,

2970: \label{zero2}\\ &&\sum_i \nabla_i^2 H_{jm} =\sum_{l\ne

2971: k}K_{jm}^{lk} \ . \nonumber

2972: \end{eqnarray}

2973: Here $K_{jm}^{lk}$ are polynomials of degree $n-2$ which

2974: are separately symmetric in the $l,k$ coordinates and in all the

2975: other coordinates except $l,k$. In Ref. \cite{ber96} it was proven

2976: that for $j=0$ these equations possess a unique solution. The

2977: proof follows through unchanged for any $j \ne 0$, and we thus

2978: proceed to finding the solution.

2979: 

2980: By symmetry we can specialize the discussion to $l=1$, $k=2$. In

2981: light of Eq.~(\ref{zero2}) we see that $H^{12}_{jm}$

2982: must have at least a quadratic contribution in $r_{12}$. This

2983: guarantees that (\ref{ansatzG}) is nonsingular in the limit

2984: $r_{12}\to 0$.  The only part of $H^{12}_{jm}$ that will

2985: contribute to structure functions must contain $\B r_3\dots \B

2986: r_{n}$ at least once. Since $H^{12}_{jm}$ has to be a

2987: polynomial of degree $n$ in the coordinates, it must be of the

2988: form

2989: \begin{equation}

2990: H^{12}_{jm}=r_{12}^{\alpha_1}r_{12}^{\alpha_2}

2991: r_3^{\alpha_3}\dots r_{n}^{\alpha_{n}} C^{\alpha_1\alpha_2\dots

2992: \alpha_{n}} +[\dots]_{1,2} \ , \label{H}

2993: \end{equation}

2994: where $[\dots]_{1,2}$ contains terms with higher powers of

2995: $r_{12}$ and therefore do not contain some of the other

2996: coordinates $r_3\dots r_{n}$. Obviously such terms are

2997: unimportant for the structure functions. Since

2998: $H^{12}_{jm}$ has to be symmetric in $\B r_1,\B r_2$ and

2999: $\B r_3\dots \B r_{n}$ separately, and it has to belong to an

3000: $jm$ sector, we conclude that the constant tensor $\B C$

3001: must have the same symmetry and must belong to the same sector.

3002: Consulting Appendix~(\ref{app:d-dim}) the most general form of $\B C$ is

3003: \begin{equation}

3004: C^{\alpha_1\alpha_2\dots \alpha_{n}} =

3005: aB_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1\alpha_2\dots

3006: \alpha_{n}}+b\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}

3007: B_{n-2,jm}^{\alpha_3\alpha_4\dots

3008: \alpha_{n}}+c\sum_{i\ne

3009: l>2}\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha_i}\delta^{\alpha_2\alpha_l}

3010: B_{n-4,jm}^{\alpha_3\alpha_4\dots \alpha_{n}} \ .

3011: \end{equation}

3012: Substituting in Eq.~(\ref{zero2}) one find

3013: $$

3014: (d+2)H^{12}_{jm}+\frac{r_{12}^{\alpha_1}r_{12}^{\alpha_2}r_3^{

3015: \alpha_3} \dots r_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}}{2d-2} B_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1\dots

3016: \alpha_{n}} +\frac{1}{2}r_{12}^{\alpha_1}r_{12}^{\alpha_2}

3017: \delta^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}K^{1,2}_{jm}=[\dots]_{1,2} \ .

3018: $$

3019: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{H}) and demanding that coefficients of the

3020: term $r_1^{\alpha_1}\dots r_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}$ will sum up to

3021: zero, we obtain

3022: $$

3023: -2(d+2)a -\frac{2}{2d-2}=0 \ , \quad -2(d+2)c=0\ ;

3024: \Longrightarrow c=0 \ . $$

3025: The coefficient $b$ is not determined from this equation due to

3026: possible contributions from the unknown last term. We determine

3027: the coefficient $b$ from Eq.~(\ref{zero1}).  After substituting

3028: the forms we find

3029: $$

3030: 4\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha_2} r_3^{\alpha_3}\dots r_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}

3031: [a B_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1\dots

3032: \alpha_{n}}+b\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}

3033: B_{n-2,jm}^{\alpha_3\alpha_4\dots\alpha_{n}}]=\delta^{\alpha_1

3034: \alpha_2}

3035: r^{\alpha_3}\dots r^{\alpha_{n}} B_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1\dots

3036: \alpha_{n}}+ [\dots]_{1,2} \ .

3037: $$

3038: Recalling the identity (\ref{iden1}) we obtain

3039: $

3040: b=\frac{z_{n,j}}{4d}[1-4a] \ . $

3041: Finally we find that $a$ is $n,j$-independent,

3042: $

3043: a=-\frac{1}{2(d+2)(d-1)}\ , $

3044: whereas $b$ does depend on $n$ and $j$, and we therefore

3045: denote it as $b_{n,j}$

3046: $$

3047: b_{n,j}=\frac{(d+1)}{4(d+2)(d-1)} z_{n,j} \ . $$

3048: In the next Subsect. we compute from these results the scaling

3049: exponents in all the sectors of the SO($d$) symmetry group.

3050: \subsubsection{The Scaling Exponents of the

3051: Structure Functions}

3052: We now wish to show that the solution for the zero modes of the

3053: correlation functions $F^{(n)}_T$ (i.e $Z^{(n)}$) result in

3054: homogeneous structure functions $S^{(n)}_T$. In every sector

3055: $j,m$ we compute the scaling exponents, and show that

3056: they are independent of $m$. Accordingly the scaling

3057: exponents are denoted $\xi^{(n)}_{j}$, and we compute them to

3058: first order in $\epsilon$.

3059: Using (\ref{diffop}) and (\ref{SinF}), the structure function is

3060: given by:

3061: \begin{eqnarray} S^{(n)}_{T,jm}(\B r_1,\Obr_1;

3062: \ldots ; \B r_{n},\Obr_{n} )= \Delta_1^{\alpha_1} \ldots

3063: \Delta_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}  B_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1\dots

3064: \alpha_{n}} + \nonumber \\

3065: \epsilon \sum_{i \neq l}

3066: \stackrel{\mbox{no } i,l} {\overbrace{ \Delta_1^{\alpha_1} \ldots

3067: \Delta_{n}^{\alpha_{n}} } } f^{\alpha_i\alpha_l} (\B r_i,\Obr_i,

3068: \B r_l,\Obr_l)   [a B_{n,jm}^{\alpha_1\dots \alpha_{n}} +b\Ctensor{i}{l}]

3069: \ , \nonumber \end{eqnarray}

3070: where $\Delta_i^{\alpha_i} \equiv

3071: r_i^{\alpha_i}-\Or_i^{\alpha_i}$, and the function $f$ is defined

3072: as:

3073: \begin{eqnarray}

3074: f^{\alpha_i\alpha_l} (\B r_i,\Obr_i,\B r_l,\Obr_l) & \equiv &

3075: (r_i-r_l)^{\alpha_i}(r_i-r_l)^{\alpha_l} \ln|\B r_i -\B r_l| \nonumber\\&+&

3076: (\Or_i - \Or_l)^{\alpha_i}(\Or_i - \Or_l)^{\alpha_l} \ln|\Obr_i -

3077: \Obr_l| \\ & - & (r_i - \Or_l)^{\alpha_i}(r_i - \Or_l)^{\alpha_l}

3078: \ln |\B r_i - \Obr_l| \nonumber\\&-& (\Or_i - r_l)^{\alpha_i}(\Or_i -

3079: r_l)^{\alpha_l}\ln |\Obr_i-{\B r}_l| \ .

3080: \end{eqnarray}

3081: The scaling exponent of $S^{(n)}_{T,jm}$ can be found

3082: by multiplying all its coordinates by $\mu$. A direct calculation

3083: yields:

3084: \begin{eqnarray*}

3085: S^{(n)}_{T,jm}(\mu \B r_1, \mu \Obr_1 ; \ldots )  =

3086: \mu^{n}S^{(n)}_{T,jm}(\B r_1,\Obr_1 ; \ldots) -

3087: 2\epsilon \mu^{n}\ln \mu \sum_{i\neq l}\stackrel{\mbox{no } i,l} {

3088: \overbrace{\Delta_1^{\alpha_1} \ldots \Delta_{n}^{\alpha_{n}} } }

3089: \Delta_i^{\alpha_i}\Delta_l^{\alpha_l} \\ \times  [a\Btensor +

3090: b_{n,j}\Ctensor{i}{l}] + O(\epsilon^2), \\ = \mu^{n}S^{(n)}_{jm}(\B

3091: r_1,\Obr_1 ; \ldots ) - 2\epsilon \mu^{n}

3092: \ln \mu \Delta_1^{\alpha_1} \ldots \Delta_{n}^{\alpha_{n}}

3093: \times \sum_{i\neq l} [a\Btensor + b{n,j}\Ctensor{i}{l} +

3094: O(\epsilon^2) \ .

3095: \end{eqnarray*}

3096: Using (\ref{iden2}), we find that $ \sum\limits_{i\neq l}

3097: [a\Btensor + b_{n,j}\Ctensor{i}{l}] = [n(n-1)a+b_{n,j}] \Btensor $, and

3098: therefore, we finally obtain:

3099: \begin{eqnarray*}

3100: S^{(n)}_T(\mu \B r_1, \mu \Obr_1 ;\ldots ) = \mu^{n} \left\{

3101: 1 - 2\epsilon [n(n-1)a+b_{n,j}] \ln \mu \right\} S^{(n)}_T(\B r_1,

3102: \Obr_1 ;\ldots ) + O(\epsilon^2) \\ = \mu^{\xi^{(n)}_{j}}

3103: S^{(n)}_T(\B r_1, \Obr_1 ; \ldots ) + O(\epsilon^2)\ ,

3104: \end{eqnarray*}

3105: The result of the scaling exponent is:

3106: $$

3107: \xi_{j}^{(n)} = 

3108: n-2\epsilon[-\frac{n(n-1)}{2(d+2)(d-1)}+\frac{(d+1)}{4(d+2)(d-1)}

3109: z_{n,j}] +O(\epsilon^2)

3110: $$

3111: from which follows (\ref{eq:perturbative}).

3112:  This is the

3113: final result of this calculation.\\

3114: It is noteworthy that this result is in full agreement with

3115: (\ref{Hscale}), even though the scaling

3116: exponents that appear in these result refer to different

3117: quantities. The way to understand this is the fusion rules that

3118: are discussed next.

3119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3120: \subsubsection{Fusion Rules}

3121: The fusion rules address the asymptotic properties of the fully

3122: unfused structure functions when two or more of the coordinates

3123: are approaching each other, whereas the rest of the coordinates

3124: remain separated by much larger scales. A full discussion of the

3125: fusion rules for the Navier-Stokes and the Kraichnan model can be

3126: found in \cite{lvo96,fai96,ben98}. In this section we quote the fusion rules

3127: that

3128: were

3129: derived in Ref. \cite{ara00} directly from the zero modes that were computed

3130: to $O(\epsilon)$, in all the sectors of the symmetry group. In

3131: other words, we are after the dependence of the structure

3132: function $ S^{(n)}_T({\bf r}_{1},\overline{{\bf r}}_{1};\ldots

3133: )$ on its first $p$ pairs of coordinates ${\bf

3134: r}_{1},\overline{{\bf r}}_{1};\ldots ;{\bf r}_{p}, \overline{{\bf

3135: r}}_{p}$ in the case where these points are very close to each

3136: other compared to their distance from the other $n-p$ pairs of

3137: coordinates. Explicitly, we consider the case where ${\bf r}_{1},

3138: \overline{{\bf r}}_{1};\ldots ;{\bf r}_{p},\overline{{\bf

3139: r}}_{p}\ll {\bf r} _{p+1},\overline{{\bf r}}_{p+1};\ldots ;{\bf

3140: r}_{n},\overline{{\bf r}}_{n}$. (We have used here the property

3141: of translational invariance to put the center of mass of the

3142: first $2p$ coordinates at the origin. The full calculation is

3143: presented in \cite{ara00}, with the final result (to $O(\epsilon)$)

3144: $$

3145: S^{(n)}_{T,jm}({\bf r}_{1},\overline{{\bf

3146: r}}_{1};\ldots ;{\bf r}_{n}, \overline{{\bf r}}_{n})

3147: =\sum_{l=l_{\rm max}}^p\sum_{m^{\prime }}\psi_{l,m^{\prime

3148: }}S^{(p)}_{T,lm^{\prime }}({\bf r}_{1},\overline{{\bf

3149: r}}_{1};\ldots ;{\bf r}_{p},\overline{ {\bf r}}_{p}) \ .

3150: $$

3151: In this expression the quantity $ \psi_{l,m^{\prime }}$

3152: is a tensor function of all the coordinates that remain separated

3153: by large distances, and

3154: $$

3155: l_{\rm max}={\rm max}\{0,p+j-n\} \ , \quad j \le n.

3156: $$

3157: We have shown that the LHS has a homogeneity exponent

3158: $\xi^{(n)}_j$. The RHS is a product of functions with

3159: homogeneity exponents $\xi^{(p)}_l$ and the functions $

3160: \psi_{l,m^{\prime}}$. Using the linear independence of the

3161: functions $S^{(p)}_{T,lm'}$ we conclude that $

3162: \psi_{l,m^{\prime}}$ must have homogeneity  exponent

3163: $\xi^{(n)}_j-\xi^{(p)}_l$. This is precisely the

3164: prediction of the fusion rules, but in each sector separately.

3165: One should stress the intuitive meaning of the fusion rules. The

3166: result shows that when $p$ coordinates approach each other, the

3167: homogeneity exponent corresponding to these coordinates becomes

3168: simply $\xi^{(p)}_l$ as if we were considering a $p$-order

3169: correlation function. The meaning of this result is that $p$

3170: field amplitudes measured at $p$ close-by coordinates in the

3171: presence of $n-p$ field amplitudes determined far away behave

3172: scaling-wise like $p$ field amplitudes in the presence of

3173: anisotropic boundary conditions.

3174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3177: \subsubsection{The Lagrangian Approach to Anomalous Scaling}

3178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3179: An elegant approach to the correlation functions is furnished by

3180: Lagrangian dynamics \cite{ap01,sra74,gat98,gat98b,fmnv99}. In this

3181: formalism one recognizes that the actual value of the scalar at

3182: position $\B x$ at time $t$ is determined by the action of the

3183: forcing along the Lagrangian trajectory from $t=-\infty$ to $t$:

3184: \begin{equation}

3185:   T(\B x_0,t_0)=\int_{-\infty}^{t_0} dt

3186:     \left< f(\B x(t),t) \right>_{\B \eta} \ ,

3187: \label{path}

3188: \end{equation}

3189: with the trajectory $\B x(t)$ obeying

3190: \be

3191:     \B x(t_0) = \B x_0  \ ,\qquad

3192:     \partial_t \B x(t) = \B u(\B x(t),t) +

3193:         \sqrt{2 \kappa}{\B \eta}(t) \ ,

3194: \label{traject1}

3195: \ee

3196: and $\B \eta$ is a vector of  zero-mean independent Gaussian

3197: white random variables, $\left< \eta^\alpha (t) \eta^\beta (t')

3198: \right> = \delta^{\alpha\beta} \delta(t-t')$. With this in mind,

3199: we can rewrite $S_T^{(2n)}$ of Eq. (\ref{Sunfused}) by substituting each

3200: factor

3201: of $T(\B x_i)$  by its representation (\ref{path}). Performing the

3202: averages  over the random forces, we end up with

3203: \begin{eqnarray}

3204:     S_T^{(2n)}(\B x_1, \ldots, \B x_{2n},t_0) =

3205:         \Big< \int_{-\infty}^{t_0} dt_1 \cdots dt_n

3206:         \Big[ \phi(\B x_1(t_1)-\B x_2(t_1)) \cdots \\

3207:         \times \phi(\B x_{2n-1}(t_n)-\B x_{2n}(t_n))

3208:         + \hbox{permutations} \Big] \Big>_{\B u,\{\B \eta_i\}} \ ,

3209: \label{FnXi}

3210: \end{eqnarray}

3211: To understand the averaging procedure recall that each of the

3212: trajectories $\B x_i$ obeys an equation of the form

3213: (\ref{traject1}), where $\B u$ as well as $\{\B

3214: \eta_i\}_{i=1}^{2n}$ are independent stochastic variables whose

3215: correlations are given above. Alternatively, we refer the reader

3216: to section II of \cite{fmnv99}, where the above analysis is carried

3217: out in detail. Here we follow the derivation of Ref. \cite{ap01}.

3218: In considering Lagrangian trajectories of {\em groups} of

3219: particles, we should note that every initial configuration is

3220: characterized by a {\em center of mass}, say $\B R$, a {\em

3221: scale} $s$ (say the radius of gyration of the cluster of

3222: particles) and a {\em shape} $\B Z$. In ``shape" we mean here all

3223: the degrees of freedom other than the scale and $\B R$: as many

3224: angles as are needed to fully determine a shape, in addition to

3225: the Euler angles that fix the shape orientation with respect to a

3226: chosen frame of coordinates. Thus a group of $2n$ positions $\{\B

3227: x_i\}$ will be sometime denoted below as $\{\B R,s,\B Z\}$.

3228: 

3229: One component in the evolution of an initial configuration is a

3230: rescaling of all the distances which increase on the average like

3231: $t^{1/\xi_2}$; this rescaling is analogous to Richardson

3232: diffusion. The exponent $\xi_2$ which determines the scale

3233: increase is also the characteristic exponent of the second order

3234: structure function \cite{kra68}. This has been related to the

3235: exponent $\epsilon$ of (\ref{kappa1}) according to $\xi_2=2-\epsilon$.

3236: After factoring  out this overall expansion we are left with a

3237: normalized `shape'. It is the evolution of this shape that

3238: determines the anomalous exponents.

3239: 

3240: Consider a final shape ${\B Z}_{0}$  with an overall scale $s_0$

3241: which is realized at $t=0$. This shape has evolved during

3242: negative times. We fix a scale $s>s_0$ and examine the shape when

3243: the configuration reaches the scale $s$ for the last time before

3244: reaching the scale $s_0$. Since the trajectories are random the

3245: shape $\B Z$ which is realized at this time is taken from a

3246: distribution $\gamma(\B Z;\B Z_0,s\to s_0)$. As long as the

3247: advecting velocity field is scale invariant, this distribution

3248: can depend only on the ratio

3249: $s/s_0$. 

3250: 

3251: Next, we use the shape-to-shape transition probability to define

3252: an operator $\hat \gamma (s/ s_0)$ on the space of functions

3253: $\Psi(\B Z)$ according to

3254: $$

3255:     [\hat {\B \gamma} (s/ s_0) \Psi](Z_0) =

3256:         \int d\B Z \gamma(\B Z;\B Z_0,s \to s_0) \Psi(\B Z).

3257: $$

3258: We will be interested in the eigenfunction and eigenvalues of

3259: this operator. This operator has two important properties. First,

3260: for an isotropic statistics of the velocity field the operator is

3261: isotropic. This means that this operator commutes with all

3262: rotation operators on the space of functions $\Psi(\B Z)$. In

3263: other words, if ${\mathcal O}_\Lambda$ is the rotation operator that

3264: takes the function $\Psi(\B Z)$ to the new function

3265: $\Psi(\Lambda^{-1} \B Z)$, then

3266: $    {\mathcal O}_\Lambda \hat{\B \gamma}

3267: =\hat{\B \gamma} {\mathcal O}_\Lambda $.

3268: This property follows from the obvious symmetry of the Kernel

3269: $\gamma(\B Z;\B Z_0,s\to s_0)$ to rotating $\B Z$ and $\B Z_0$

3270: simultaneously. Accordingly the eigenfunctions of $\hat {\B

3271: \gamma}$ can be classified according to the irreducible

3272: representations of SO($3$) symmetry group.

3273: Because in this section we are not computing explicitly the exponents

3274: we do not need to present the precise form of the eigenfunctions

3275: and we will denote them for simplicity as

3276:  $B_{qj m}(\B Z)$.

3277: The second important property of $\hat {\B \gamma}$ follows from

3278: the $\delta$-correlation in time of the velocity field. Physically

3279: this means that the future trajectories of $n$ particles are

3280: statistically independent of their trajectories in the past.

3281: Mathematically, it implies for the kernel that

3282: $$

3283:   \gamma(\B Z;\B Z_0,s\to s_0)  = \int d\B Z_1 \gamma(\B Z;\B Z_1,s\to s_1)

3284:     \gamma(\B Z_1;\B Z_0,s_1\to s_0) \ , \quad s>s_1>s_0

3285: $$

3286: and in turn, for the operator, that

3287: $$

3288: \hat {\B \gamma} (s/ s_0) =\hat {\B \gamma} (s/ s_1)\hat {\B

3289: \gamma} (s_1/ s_0) \ .

3290: $$

3291: Accordingly, by a successive application of $\hat{\B

3292: \gamma}(s/s_0)$ to an arbitrary eigenfunction, we get that the

3293: eigenvalues of $\hat{\B \gamma}$ have to be of the form

3294: $\alpha_{q,j}=(s/s_0)^{\xi^{(2n)}_{j}}$:

3295: \begin{equation}

3296:   ({s \over s_0})^{\xi^{(2n)}_{j}} B_{qj m}(\B Z_0) =

3297:     \int d \B Z\gamma(\B Z; \B Z_0, s \to s_0) B_{qj m}(\B Z)

3298: \label{eig}

3299: \end{equation} From Schur's lemmas one can prove that the eigenvalues do not

3300: depend on

3301: $m$. On the other hand  they can still be a function of $q$

3302: but for simplicity of notation we do not explicitly carry the $q$

3303: index in $\xi$.\\

3304: To proceed we want to introduce into the averaging process in

3305: (\ref{FnXi}) by averaging over Lagrangian trajectories of the

3306: $2n$ particles. This will allow us to connect the shape dynamics

3307: to the statistical objects. To this aim consider any set of

3308: Lagrangian trajectories that started at $t=-\infty$ and end up at

3309: time $t=0$ in a configuration characterized by a scale $s_0$ and

3310: center of mass $\B R_0=0$. A full measure of these have evolved

3311: through the scale $L$ or larger. Accordingly they must have

3312: passed, during their evolution from time $t=-\infty$ through a

3313: configuration of scale $s>s_0$ at least once. Denote now

3314: $

3315:     \mu_{2n}(t,R,\B Z;s\to s_0,\B Z_0)dtd\B Rd\B Z

3316: $

3317: as the probability that this set of $2n$ trajectories crossed the

3318: scale $s$ for the last time before reaching $s_0,\B Z_0$, between

3319: $t$ and $t+dt$, with a center of mass between $\B R$ and $\B

3320: R+d\B R$ and with a shape between $\B Z$ and $\B Z+d\B Z$.

3321: 

3322: In terms of this probability we can rewrite Eq.(\ref{FnXi})

3323: (displaying, for clarity, $\B R_0=0$ and $t=0$) as

3324: \begin{eqnarray}

3325:  && S_T^{(2n)}(\B R_0=0,s_0,\B Z_0,t=0) = \int d\B Z\int_{-\infty}^0 dt \int

3326: d\B

3327: R

3328:     \mu_{2n}(t,R,\B Z; s \to s_0, \B Z_0) \nonumber \\

3329:  &&\times\left< \int_{-\infty}^{0}dt_1\cdots dt_n

3330:     \Big[  \phi(\B x_1(t_1)-\B x_2(t_1)) \cdots

3331:         \phi(\B x_{2n-1}(t_n) - \B x_{2n}(t_n)) +\hbox{perms}\Big]

3332:     \Big \vert (s; \B R, \B Z, t) \right> _{\B u,\B \eta_i} \ .

3333: \label{Fntraj} 

3334: \end{eqnarray}

3335: The meaning of the conditional averaging is an averaging over all

3336: the realizations of the velocity field and the random $\B \eta_i$

3337: for which Lagrangian trajectories that ended up at time $t=0$ in

3338: $\B R=0,s_0, \B Z_0$ passed through $\B R ,s,\B Z$ at time $t$.

3339: 

3340: Next, the time integrations in the above equation are split to the

3341: interval $[-\infty,t]$ and $[t,0]$ giving rise to $2^n$ different

3342: contributions:

3343: $$

3344:     \int_{-\infty}^t dt_1 \cdots \int_{-\infty}^t dt_n +

3345:     \int_{t}^0 dt_1 \int_{-\infty}^{t} dt_2 \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{t} dt_n

3346:     + \dots

3347: $$

3348: Consider first the contribution with $n$ integrals in the domain

3349: $[-\infty,t]$. It follows from the delta-correlation in time of

3350: the velocity field, that we can write

3351: \begin{eqnarray}

3352:    && \left< \int_{-\infty}^t dt_1\cdots dt_n

3353:     \Big[ \phi(\B x_1(t_1)-\B x_2(t_1)) \cdots

3354:           \phi(\B x_{2n-1}(t_n)-\B x_{2n}(t_n)) + \hbox{perms} \Big]

3355:     \Big \vert (s; \B R, \B Z,t) \right> _{\B u,\B \eta_i} \nonumber \\

3356:    && = \left< \int_{-\infty}^t dt_1 \cdots dt_n

3357:     \Big[\phi(\B x_1(t_1)-\B x_2(t_1)) \cdots \phi(\B x_{2n-1}(t_n) -

3358:            \B x_{2n}(t_n)) + \hbox{perms} \Big]

3359:    \right> _{\B u,\B \eta_i} \nonumber \\

3360:    && = S^{(2n)}_T(\B R, s, \B Z, t)=S_T^{(2n)}(s, \B Z) \ .

3361: \end{eqnarray}

3362: The last equality follows from translational invariance in

3363: space-time. Accordingly the contribution with $n$ integrals in

3364: the domain $[-\infty,t]$ can be written as

3365: $$

3366:     \int d\B Z S_T^{(2n)}(s,\B Z) \int_{-\infty}^0 dt \int d\B R~~

3367:     \mu_{2n}(t,R,\B Z;s\to s_0,\B Z_0) \ .

3368: $$

3369: We identify the shape-to-shape transition probability:

3370: \begin{equation}

3371:     \gamma(\B Z;\B Z_0,s \to s_0)=\int_{-\infty}^0 dt\int d\B R~~

3372:     \mu_{2n}(t,R,\B Z;s \to s_0, \B Z_0) \ .

3373: \end{equation}

3374: Finally, putting all this added wisdom back in Eq.(\ref{Fntraj})

3375: we end up with

3376: \begin{equation}

3377:     S_T^{(2n)}(s_0, \B Z_0) = I + \int d\B Z \gamma(\B Z; \B Z_0, s \to s_0)

3378:         S_T^{(2n)}(s,\B Z)\ . \label{crucial}

3379: \label{split}

3380: \end{equation}

3381: Here $I$ represents all the contributions with one or more time

3382: integrals in the domain $[t,0]$.  The key point now is that only

3383: the term with $n$ integrals in the domain $[-\infty,t]$ contains

3384: information about the evolution of $2n$ Lagrangian trajectories

3385: that probed the forcing scale $L$. Accordingly, the term denoted

3386: by $I$ cannot contain information about the leading anomalous

3387: scaling exponent belonging to $F_{2n}$, but only of lower order

3388: exponents. The anomalous scaling dependence of the LHS of

3389: Eq.(\ref{crucial}) has to cancel against the integral containing

3390: $F_{2n}$ without the intervention of $I$.

3391: 

3392: Representing now

3393: \begin{eqnarray}

3394:   S_T^{(2n)}(s_0,\B Z_0) &=& \sum_{qj m} a_{q,j m}(s_0)

3395:     B_{qj m}(\B Z_0)\ ,\nonumber \\

3396:   S_T^{(2n)}(s,\B Z) &=& \sum_{qj m} a_{q, j m}(s)

3397:     B_{qj m}(\B Z) \ ,\nonumber \\

3398: I&=& \sum_{qj m} I_{q j m} B_{qj m}(\B Z_0)

3399: \end{eqnarray}

3400: and substituting on both sides of Eq.(\ref{crucial}) and using

3401: Eq.(\ref{eig}) we find, due to the linear independence of the

3402: eigenfunctions $B_{qj m}$

3403: $$  a_{q, j m}(s_0) = I_{q j m} +

3404:   \left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\xi^{(2n)}_{j}} a_{q, j m}(s).

3405: $$ To leading order the contribution of $I_{q j m}$ is neglected,

3406: leading to the conclusion that {\em the spectrum of anomalous

3407: exponents of the correlation functions is determined by the

3408: eigenvalues of the shape-to-shape transition probability

3409: operator}. Calculations show that the leading exponent in the

3410: isotropic sector is always smaller than the leading exponents in

3411: all other sectors. This gap between the leading exponent in the

3412: isotropic sector to the rest of the exponents determines the rate

3413: of decay of anisotropy upon decreasing the scale of observation.

3414: 

3415: The derivation presented above has used explicitly the properties

3416: of the advecting field, in particular the $\delta$-correlation in

3417: time. Accordingly it cannot be immediately generalized to more

3418: generic situations in which there exist time correlations.

3419: Nevertheless we find it pleasing that at least in the present

3420: case we can trace the physical origin of the exponents anomaly,

3421: and connect it to the underlying dynamics. In more generic cases

3422: the mechanisms may be more complicated, but one should still keep

3423: the lesson in mind - higher order correlation functions depend on

3424: many coordinates, and these define a configuration in space. The

3425: scaling properties of such functions may very well depend on how

3426: such configurations are reached by the dynamics. Focusing on

3427: static objects like structure functions of one variable may be

3428: insufficient for the understanding of the physics of anomalous

3429: scaling. Important confirmation of this picture have been found recently

3430: also for the case of passive scalars advected by a $2d$ turbulent flow

3431: in the inverse cascade regime \cite{cel01a} and for the case of

3432: shell models for passive scalars advection \cite{ara01a}.

3433: \subsubsection{Summary and Discussion}

3434: The main lesson from this subsection is that the scaling exponents

3435: form a discrete and strictly increasing spectrum as a function of

3436: $j$. This is the first example where this can be shown rigorously.

3437: The meaning of this result is that for higher $j$ the anisotropic

3438: contributions to the statistical objects decay faster upon decreasing

3439: scales.  The rate of isotropization is determined by the difference

3440: between the $j$ dependent scaling exponents, and is of course a power

3441: law. The result shows that to first order in $\epsilon$ the

3442: $j$-dependent part is independent of the order of the correlation

3443: function. This means that the rate of isotropization of all the

3444: moments of the distribution function of field differences across a

3445: given scale is the same. This is a demonstration of the fact that,

3446: to $O(\epsilon)$ the

3447: distributions function itself tends toward a locally isotropic

3448: distribution function. We note in passing that to

3449: first order in $\epsilon$ the $j$ dependent part is also the same  for

3450: $\xi^{(2)}$, a quantity whose isotropic value is {\em not}

3451: anomalous. For all $j>1$ also $\xi^{(2)}_j$ is anomalous, and in

3452: agreement with the $n=2$ value of Eq.~(\ref{eq:perturbative}).

3453:  Significantly, for

3454: $\xi_j^{(2)}$ we have a nonperturbative result that was derived in

3455: \cite{fai96}, namely

3456: $$

3457: \xi^{(2)}_j=\frac{1}{2}\Big(2-d-\epsilon+\sqrt{(2-d-\epsilon)^2

3458: +\frac{4(d+\epsilon-1)j(d+j-2)}{d-1}}\Big) \ , \quad

3459: j\ge 2$$

3460: valid for all values of $\epsilon$ in the interval (0,2) and for

3461: all $j \ge 2$. This exact result agrees after expanding to

3462: $O(\epsilon)$ with (\ref{eq:perturbative}) for $n=2$ and $j=2$.

3463: 

3464: The second lesson from this first exactly solvable example

3465: was  the correspondence between

3466: the scaling exponents of the zero modes in the inertial interval

3467: and the corresponding scaling exponents of the gradient fields.

3468: The latter do not depend on any inertial scales, and the exponent

3469: appears in the combination

3470: $\left(\Lambda/\eta\right)^{\xi^{(n)}_j}$ where $\eta$ is the

3471: appropriate ultraviolet inner cutoff. We found exact agreement with

3472: the exponents of the zero modes in all the sectors of the

3473: symmetry group and for all values of $n$. The deep reason behind

3474: this agreement is the linearity of the fundamental equation of

3475: the passive scalar (\ref{advect}). This translates to the fact

3476: that the viscous cutoff $\eta$  is $n$ and $j$

3477: independent, and also does not depend on the inertial separations

3478: in the unfused correlation functions. This point has been

3479: discussed in detail in \cite{fai96,lvo96a}. In the case of

3480: Navier-Stokes statistics we expect this ``trivial" correspondence

3481: to fail. Nevertheless, many attempts have been done

3482: to describe the matching between the inertial and dissipative

3483: scaling properties \cite{lvo96,fri91,ben96b}

3484: for the isotropic sector. Finally we note that in the present

3485: case we have displayed the fusion rules in all the $j$

3486: sectors, using the $O(\epsilon)$ explicit form of the zero modes.

3487: We expect the fusion rules to have a nonperturbative validity for

3488: any value of $\epsilon$.\\

3489: An interesting modification of Kraichnan models has been recently

3490: proposed in \cite{cel04} where the scaling properties of a passive

3491: scalar advected by a Kraichnan-like shear flow are investigated.

3492: The anisotropy introduced by the shear breaks the foliations of the

3493: correlation functions equations. Nevertheless, the authors have been able

3494: to explain the existence of a scaling range in the passive spectrum

3495: with anomalous slope (i.e. different from the result obtained

3496: in absence of shear), for scales larger than the typical  shear-length

3497: in the system. This anomalous slope is due to the fast advection of passive

3498: particles in the mean shear direction.

3499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3501: \subsection{Passively Advected Magnetic Field}

3502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3504: \label{chap:magnetic} Another exactly solvable system  of some interest

3505: is the case of passively advected magnetic field. This model was first

3506: proposed in \cite{ver96}. It describes the advection of a

3507: magnetic field $\BB(\Bx,t)$ by the same Kraichnan stochastic velocity

3508: field described in Eq.~(\ref{W1}).  The equation of motion for the

3509: magnetic field is

3510: \begin{eqnarray}

3511: \partial_t \BB(\Bx,t) &&+ \Big[\Bu(\Bx,t)\cdot\B{\nabla}\Big]\BB(\Bx,t)

3512:     - \Big[\BB(\Bx,t)\cdot\B{\nabla}\Big] \Bu(\Bx,t)

3513:   \nonumber\\&&= \kappa \nabla^2\BB(\Bx,t) + \B{f}(\Bx,t) \ , \label{eq:B}

3514: \end{eqnarray}

3515: which has to be supplemented by the solenoidality condition

3516: $\B{\nabla}\cdot\BB(\Bx,t)=0$. The source (``forcing'') term $\B{f}(\Bx,t)$

3517: is a solenoidal vector field that is responsible for injecting the magnetic

3518: field into the system at large scales.

3519:  The second-order moment of the source field here is a

3520: second-order solenoidal tensor

3521: \begin{equation}

3522:   \Big< f^\alpha(\Bx+\Br,t')f^\beta(\Bx,t) \Big> \equiv

3523:      \delta(t-t')A^{\alpha\beta}\left(\frac{\Br}{L}\right) \ ,

3524: \label{eq:ff}

3525: \end{equation}

3526: instead of a scalar. The tensor

3527: $A^{\alpha\beta}(\By)$ is used to mimic large-scale anisotropic boundary

3528: conditions and is therefore taken to be anisotropic, analytic in $\By$ and

3529: vanishing rapidly for $y \gg 1$.

3530:  Finally, the dissipative term

3531: $\kappa \nabla^2\BB(\Bx,t)$ dissipates the magnetic field out of the system

3532: at small scales.

3533: 

3534: Notice that in order to keep the magnetic field solenoidal, \Eq{eq:B}

3535: contains a ``stretching'' term

3536: $\Big[\BB(\Bx,t)\cdot\B{\nabla}\Big]\Bu(\Bx,t)$. This term may cause a

3537: ``dynamo effect'', which is what happens when the magnetic field amplifies

3538: itself by extracting kinetic energy from the velocity field \cite{chi95}.

3539:   Such effect

3540: can destabilize the system, and prevents it from reaching a stationary

3541: state.

3542: 

3543: Just as in the Kraichnan passive scalar case, we can use the fact that

3544: both the velocity and source fields are white-noise Gaussian

3545: processes, and derive a closed set of equations for the simultaneous

3546: $n$th-order correlation-functions of the magnetic field.  For example,

3547: the equation of motion for the second order magnetic correlation

3548: function $$ C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br,t) \equiv \Big< B^\alpha(\Bx+\Br,t)

3549: B^\beta(\Bx,t) \Big> \, $$ can be easily derived

3550: \cite{ver96}:

3551: \begin{eqnarray}

3552: \partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}&=& K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu

3553:     C^{\alpha\beta} - [(\partial_\nu K^{\mu\beta})\partial_\mu

3554:     C^{\alpha\nu} + (\partial_\nu K^{\alpha\mu}) \partial_\mu

3555:     C^{\nu\beta}] \nonumber\\ &+&(\partial_\mu \partial_\nu

3556:     K^{\alpha\beta}) C^{\mu\nu} + 2\kappa\nabla^2 C^{\alpha\beta} +

3557:     A^{\alpha\beta} \equiv {\hat

3558:     T}^{\alpha\beta}_{~~\sigma\rho}C^{\sigma\rho} + A^{\alpha\beta} \

3559:     , \label{EqC} \end{eqnarray}

3560: where one has to add also the solenoidal condition for the magnetic field,

3561: $\partial_\alpha C^{\alpha\beta} = 0$

3562: and the tensor $K^{\mu \nu}$

3563: is the two-point velocity correlation (\ref{kappa1}).

3564:   The solution of (\ref{EqC}) was found in

3565: \cite{ver96}.  It was shown there that for $0<\epsilon <1$ no dynamo

3566: occurs, while for $\epsilon >1$ a dynamo is developed. Consequently

3567: for $0<\epsilon<1$ the system may reach a stationary state where the

3568: correlation function of the magnetic field behaves like a power law in

3569: the inertial range. In \cite{ver96} the zero modes of the

3570: second-order correlation-function was calculated and its anomalous

3571: scaling in the isotropic sector was found for any $0 \le \epsilon \le

3572: 1$.  Notice that for this passive vector model, the absence of any

3573: conservation law for the magnetic energy allows for anomalous scaling

3574: already for the second order correlation in the isotropic sector, at

3575: difference from what happens in the passive scalar case discussed in

3576: section (\ref{s:Kra}). This was the first case where a fully

3577: non-perturbative analytical solutions was presented demonstrating the

3578: possibility to have anomalous scaling in hydrodynamic problems.

3579: 

3580: In ref.~\cite{lan99,ara00a} this analysis was generalized to all

3581: the sectors of the SO($3$) group using the SO($3$) decomposition.  Here we

3582: review the results presented in ref.~\cite{ara00a} where a

3583: systematic non-perturbative study of the solutions of (\ref{EqC}) was

3584: given in all $(j,m)$ sectors of the SO($3$) group. As usual, it is

3585: advantageous to decompose the covariance $C^{\alpha\beta}$ in terms of

3586: basis functions that block-diagonalize the angular part of the

3587: operator $\hat{ \B T}$,which  is invariant to all

3588: rotations. In addition, $\hat{ \B T}$ is invariant to the

3589: parity transformation $\B r \to -\B r$, and to the index permutation

3590: $(\alpha,\mu)\Leftrightarrow (\beta,\nu)$. Accordingly, $\hat{ \B T}$

3591: can be further block-diagonalized into blocks with definite parity and

3592: symmetry under permutations.

3593: 

3594: In light of these consideration we seek solutions

3595: in terms of the decomposition given in (\ref{Texp}):

3596: \begin{equation}

3597: C^{\alpha\beta}(\Br,t) =\sum_{q,j,m} C^{(2)}_{q,jm}(r,t) \,\,

3598:     B^{\alpha\beta}_{q,jm}(\hat{\Br}).

3599: \label{c-expand}\end{equation}

3600: As discussed in sec. (\ref{sec:construction}) the nine basis functions

3601: can be grouped in four sub-groups depending on their symmetries under

3602: parity and index permutation (\ref{eq:second-rank-tensors}).

3603: It should be noted that not all

3604: subsets contribute for every value of $j$.

3605: Space homogeneity implies the obvious symmetry of the covariance:

3606: $

3607: C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r,t)=C^{\beta\alpha}(-\B r,t) $.

3608: Therefore representations symmetric to $\alpha,~\beta$ exchange must

3609: also have even parity, while antisymmetric representations must have

3610: odd parity.  Accordingly, even $j$'s are associated with subsets I and

3611: III, and odd $j$'s are associated with subset II.  Subset IV cannot

3612: contribute to this theory due to the solenoidal constraint.

3613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3615: %

3616: % Section III - The matrix representation of the operator $\hat {\bf T}$

3617: %

3618: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3619: %%

3620: \subsubsection{The Matrix Representation of the Operator $\hat {\bf T}$}

3621: Having the angular basis functions we seek the representation of the

3622: operator $\hat{ \B T}$ in this basis. In such a representation $\hat{ \B T}$

3623:  is a

3624: differential operator with respect to $r$ only. In Appendix A

3625: of \cite{ara00a} it is shown

3626:  how $\hat{ \B T}$ mixes basis functions within a given subset, but

3627: not between the subsets - as is expected in the last section. In finding the

3628: matrix representation of $\hat{ \B T}$ we are aided by the incompressibility

3629: constraint. Consider first subset I made of the four

3630: symmetric and with $(-)^j$ parity

3631:  basis functions: $B^{\alpha\beta}_{q,jm}(\hat{\Br})$ with $q=1,5,7,9$

3632: in a given $j,m$ sector. To simplify the notation we

3633: denote the $a$'s coefficients according to

3634: $a(r) \equiv C^{(2)}_{9jm}(r)$, $b(r) \equiv C^{(2)}_{7jm}(r)$,

3635: $c(r) \equiv C^{(2)}_{1jm}(r) $ and $d(r) \equiv C^{(2)}_{5jm}(r)$.

3636: Primes will denote

3637: differentiation with respect to $r$. \\

3638: In this basis the operator $\hat{ \B T}$ takes on the form

3639: \begin{equation}

3640: \hat{ \B T} \left [\left(

3641:     \begin{array}{c} a\\ b \\ c \\ d \end{array} \right)\right]

3642: =\B  T_1 \left( \begin{array}{c} a''\\ b'' \\ c'' \\ d'' \end{array} \right)

3643: + \B  T_2\left( \begin{array}{c} a'\\ b' \\ c' \\ d'\end{array} \right)

3644: + \B  T_3 \left(\begin{array}{c} a\\ b \\ c \\ d \end{array} \right) \ .

3645: \label{T123}

3646: \end{equation}

3647: On the RHS we have matrix products. In addition, the solenoidal condition

3648: implies the following two constrains on $a,~b,~c$ and $d$ (cf. the Appendix

3649: of \cite{ara99b}):

3650: \begin{eqnarray}

3651: 0 &=&a' + 2\frac{a}{r} + jb' - j^2\frac{b}{r} + c' - j\frac{c}{r}

3652: \nonumber\\

3653: 0 &=&b' + 3\frac{b}{r} + \frac{c}{r} + (j-1)d' - (j-1)(j-2)\frac{d}{r}

3654: \nonumber \end{eqnarray}

3655: Using these conditions one can bring $\B T_1$ and $\B T_2$ to diagonal

3656: forms,

3657: $$

3658: \B T_1=2(Dr^\epsilon+\kappa) \B 1 \; ;

3659: %\left(

3660: %\begin{array}{cccc}

3661: %1 & & & \\

3662: %& 1 & & \\

3663: %& & 1 & \\

3664: %& & & 1

3665: %\end{array}

3666: %\right) 

3667: \qquad

3668: \B T_2=\frac{4}{r}[(Dr^\epsilon+\kappa)+\epsilon D r^\epsilon] \B 1

3669: %\left(

3670: %\begin{array}{cccc} 1

3671: %& & & \\

3672: %& 1 & & \\

3673: %& & 1 & \\

3674: %& & & 1

3675: %\end{array}

3676: %\right) \ .

3677: $$

3678: where $\B 1$ is the unit matrix.

3679: $\B T_3$ can be written in the form

3680: $$

3681: \B T_3 = Dr^{\epsilon-2} \B Q(j,\epsilon)+\kappa r^{-2}\B Q(j,0).

3682: $$

3683: The explicit expression for the  four columns of $\B Q(j,\epsilon)$

3684: can be found in \cite{ara00a}

3685: %\begin{eqnarray}

3686: %\left(

3687: %\begin{array}{c}

3688: %-(2+\epsilon )(j+2)(j+3)+2\epsilon \lbrack (j+1)(2+\epsilon )+8]+\epsilon

3689: %^{2}(1-\epsilon )\\ (2+\epsilon

3690: %)(2-\epsilon )\\ (2+\epsilon )(2-\epsilon )(1-\epsilon )\\0\end{array}

3691: %\right)\nonumber\\

3692: %\left(\begin{array}{c} -2j(j+1-\epsilon )\epsilon (2-\epsilon ) \\

3693: %-j(2+\epsilon )(j+1)+2\epsilon

3694: %(7-\epsilon )\\ -2j\epsilon (2+\epsilon )(2-\epsilon )\\ 2(2+\epsilon

3695: %)(2-\epsilon

3696: %)\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\ \left(\begin{array}{c} -\epsilon (2-\epsilon

3697: %)(2j-3-\epsilon )\\ \epsilon (2-\epsilon )\\ -j(2+\epsilon

3698: %)(j+1)+\epsilon^{2}(3+\epsilon )\\

3699: %0\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\ \left(\begin{array}{c} -j(j-1)(2-\epsilon

3700: %)(4-\epsilon

3701: %)\epsilon \\ -\epsilon(j-1)(2-\epsilon)(j-4) \\ -j(j-1)(2-\epsilon

3702: %)(2+\epsilon )\epsilon \\ -(2+\epsilon )(j-2)(j-1+2\epsilon )-2\epsilon

3703: %\end{array}

3704: %\right)

3705: %\end{eqnarray}

3706: In Appendix B of (\cite{ara00a})

3707:  the two remaining blocks (subsets II, III after the list

3708: (\ref{eq:second-rank-tensors}) ), in the

3709: matrix representation of $\hat{ \B T}$ as a function of $j$ have been also

3710: investigated. The single basis

3711: $B_{3,jm}$ (subset IV) cannot appear in the theory since $C^{(2)}_{3jm}=0$

3712: by the

3713: solenoidal condition (cf. Appendix of \cite{ara99b}).

3714: Lastly, there are no solutions belonging to the $j=1$ sector. This is due

3715: to the fact that such solutions correspond to subset II. In this subset the

3716: $j=1$ solenoidal condition implies the equation:

3717: $\frac{d}{dr} C^{(2)}_{81m}+\frac{3C^{(2)}_{81m}}{r}=0 $,

3718: or $C^{(2)}_{81m} \propto r^{-3}$ which is not an admissible solution.

3719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3720: %%

3721: %

3722: % Section IV - Absence of dynamo effect

3723: %

3724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3725: %%

3726: 

3727: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3728: %%

3729: %

3730: % Section V - calculation of the scaling exponents

3731: %

3732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3733: %%

3734: \subsubsection{Calculation of the Scaling Exponents}

3735: Before turning to the computation of the exponents one should consider

3736:  the existence of a stationary solution for

3737: $t\to \infty$. In  \cite{ver96}

3738: it was showed that there is not dynamo  in the isotropic

3739: sector as long as $\epsilon<1$. In \cite{ara00a}

3740: it has been  demonstrated that for the same values of $\epsilon$,

3741: the dynamo effect is absent also in the anisotropic sectors.

3742: The reader is referred to \cite{ara00a} for details

3743: on this subject.

3744: In the absence of a dynamo effect, we can consider a stationary state of the

3745: system, maintained by the forcing term $\B f(\B r,t)$. The covariance in

3746: such

3747: a case will obey the following equation:

3748: $$

3749: {\hat T}^{\alpha\beta}_{~~\sigma\rho}C^{\sigma\rho}+A^{\alpha\beta}=0 \ .

3750: $$

3751: Deep in the inertial range we look for scale invariant solutions of

3752: the above equation

3753: neglecting the dissipative terms.

3754: The most general scale invariant solution can be expressed  as a linear

3755: superposition of  homogeneous (zero-modes)

3756: and non-homogeneous solutions of the above equation:

3757: $$C^{\sigma\rho}(\B r) =  C_{hom}^{\sigma\rho}(\B r) +

3758: C_{non-h}^{\sigma\rho}(\B r).$$

3759: In particular, only zero-modes can carry anomalous scaling, being the

3760: scaling properties of the non-homogeneous solutions fixed by

3761:  the dimensional matching $ {\hat T}^{\alpha\beta}_{~~\sigma\rho}

3762: C^{\sigma\rho} \sim A^{\alpha\beta} $. Therefore,

3763: the existence of a leading anomalous scaling contribution to small scales

3764: magnetic fluctuations is connected to the existence of one, some,

3765: zero-modes with scaling exponents smaller than the dimensional estimate.

3766: 

3767: The calculation of the scale-invariant solutions becomes rather immediate

3768: once

3769: we know the functional form of the operator $\hat{\B T}$ in the basis of the

3770: angular tensors $\B B_{q,jm}$. Using the expansion (\ref{c-expand}), and the

3771: fact that $\hat{\B T}$ is block diagonalized by such an expansion, we get a

3772: set of 2nd order coupled ODE's for each block. To demonstrate this point,

3773: consider the four dimensional block of $\hat{\B T}$, created by the four

3774: basis

3775: tensors $\B B_{q,jm}$ of subset I. According to the notation of the last

3776: section, we denote the coefficients of these angular tensors in

3777: (\ref{c-expand}), by the four functions $a(r),b(r),c(r),d(r)$:

3778: $$

3779: C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \equiv a(r)B^{\alpha\beta}_{9,jm} +

3780: b(r)B^{\alpha\beta}_{7,jm} + c(r)B^{\alpha\beta}_{1,jm} +

3781: d(r)B^{\alpha\beta}_{5,jm} + \dots \ ,

3782: $$

3783: where ($\dots$) stand for terms with other $j,m$ and other symmetries with

3784: the same $j,m$. Let us first consider the case where $\xi>0$. According to

3785: (\ref{T123}), well within the inertial range, these functions obey:

3786: \begin{equation}

3787: \B  T_1(\kappa=0)

3788: \left(\begin{array}{c}a''\\ b'' \\ c'' \\ d'' \end{array} \right) +

3789: \B T_2(\kappa=0)\left(\begin{array}{c} a'\\ b'\\ c'\\ d'\end{array}\right) +

3790: \B T_3(\kappa=0) \left( \begin{array}{c} a\\ b\\ c\\ d \end{array}\right)=0

3791: \ .

3792: \label{zero-eq}

3793: \end{equation}

3794: Due to the scale-invariance of these equations, we look for scale-invariant

3795: solutions in the form:

3796: \begin{equation}

3797: a(r)=ar^{\xi}, \quad b(r)=br^{\xi},\quad d(r)=cr^{\xi},

3798: \quad d(r)=dr^{\xi} \ .

3799: \label{si-form}

3800: \end{equation}

3801: Where $a,b,c,d$ are complex constants. Substituting (\ref{si-form}) into

3802: (\ref{zero-eq}) results in a set of four

3803: linear homogeneous equations for the unknowns $a,b,c,d$ :

3804: $$

3805: \left[

3806:   \xi(\xi-1) \B T_1(\kappa=0) + \xi \B T_2(\kappa=0) + \B

3807: T_3(\kappa=0)

3808: \right]

3809: \left(\begin{array}{c} a\\ b \\ c \\ d \end{array} \right) =0 \ .

3810: $$

3811: The last equation admits non-trivial solutions only when

3812: $$

3813: \det\left[

3814:   \xi(\xi-1) \B T_1(\kappa=0) + \xi \B T_2(\kappa=0) + \B

3815: T_3(\kappa=0)

3816: \right]=0 \ .

3817: $$

3818: This solvability condition allows us to express $\xi$ as a function of $j$

3819: and $\epsilon$. Using MATHEMATICA one finds eight possible values of $\xi$,

3820: out-of-which, only four are in agreement with the solenoidal condition:

3821: \begin{eqnarray}

3822: \xi_{j}^{(2)}(i)&=&-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon -\frac{3}{2} \pm \frac{1}{2}

3823:     \sqrt{H(\epsilon ,j) \pm 2 \sqrt{K(\epsilon ,j)}} \ , \quad{i=1,2,3,4}

3824: \ ,\label{exponents-I} \\

3825: K(\epsilon,j) &\equiv& \epsilon^4- 2\epsilon^3 + 2\epsilon^3j +

3826: 2\epsilon^3j^2 - 4\epsilon^2j -

3827:     3\epsilon^2 - 4\epsilon^2 j^2 - 8 \epsilon j^2-8\epsilon j + 4\epsilon +

3828: 16j + 16j^2 + 4

3829:     \nonumber \\

3830: H(\epsilon ,j) &\equiv& -\epsilon^2 - 8\epsilon + 2\epsilon j^2 + 2\epsilon

3831: j + 4j^2 + 4j + 5

3832: \nonumber \ .

3833: \end{eqnarray}

3834: Not all of these solutions are physically acceptable because not all of them

3835: can be matched to the zero mode solutions in the dissipative regime. To see

3836: why this is so, consider the zero-mode equation for $\epsilon=0$:

3837: \begin{equation}

3838:     (2\kappa+2D) \nabla^2 \B C = 0 \ .

3839: \label{zero-eq-zero-epsilon}

3840: \end{equation}

3841: The main difference between the $\epsilon=0$ case and the $\epsilon>0$ case

3842: is that

3843: in the

3844: former the same scale-invariant equation holds {\em both} for the inertial

3845: range and the dissipative range. As a result, for $\epsilon=0$, the zero

3846: modes

3847: scale

3848: with the same exponents in the two regimes. These exponents are given

3849: simply by

3850: (\ref{exponents-I}) with $\epsilon=0$, because for $\epsilon=0$ the zero

3851: modes

3852: equation

3853: with $\kappa=0$ is the same as (\ref{zero-eq-zero-epsilon}) up to the

3854: overall

3855: factor

3856: $\frac{D}{D+\kappa}$ which does not change the exponent. For

3857: $\epsilon=0$  th  solutions should be valid for the dissipative regime as

3858: well as

3859: for

3860: the inertial regime, ruling out the two solutions with negative exponents in

3861: (\ref{exponents-I}), for they will give a non-physical divergence as

3862: $r \rightarrow 0$. Assuming now that the solutions (including the

3863: exponents) are

3864: continuous in $\epsilon$, (and not necessarily analytic!), one finds that

3865: also

3866: for

3867: finite $\epsilon$ only the positive exponents appear in the inertial range

3868: (an

3869: exception to that is the $j=0$, to be discussed below). Finally there

3870: are two branches of solutions corresponding to the ($-$) and ($+$) in the

3871: square

3872: root.

3873: $$

3874: \xi_{j}^{(2)}=-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon + \frac{1}{2}

3875: \sqrt{H(\epsilon ,j)

3876:     \pm 2 \sqrt{K(\epsilon ,j)}}\ , \quad \mbox {subset I}.

3877: $$

3878:  Note that for $j=0$,

3879: only the branch with the $+$ sign under the square root exists

3880:  since the other exponent is not admissible,

3881: being negative for $\epsilon\to 0$, and therefore excluded by continuity.

3882: $\xi_{0}^{(2)}$ however becomes negative as $\epsilon$ increases.

3883: For $j\ge 2$ both solutions are admissible, and the

3884: leading is that one with the minus  sign in the square root.\\

3885: Let us also discuss

3886: the behavior of the zero modes in the dissipative regime for

3887: $\epsilon>0$. Here the dissipation terms become dominant and we can neglect

3888: all

3889: other

3890: terms in $\hat{\B T}$. The zero mode equation in this regime becomes

3891: $2\kappa

3892: \nabla^2 C^{\alpha\beta} = 0$, which is again, up to an overall factor,

3893: identical to the zero mode equation with $\kappa=0, \epsilon=0$. The

3894: solutions in

3895: this region are once again scale invariant with scaling exponents

3896: $\xi_{j}^{(2)}|_{\epsilon=0}=j,j-2$. As expected, the correlation

3897: function

3898: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ becomes smooth in the dissipative regime.

3899: 

3900: In \cite{ara00a}  the  computation of the exponents corresponding to

3901: subsets II and III is also presented. The result is:

3902: $$

3903: \xi_{j}^{(2)}=-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon +\frac{1}{2}

3904:     \sqrt{1-10\epsilon+ \epsilon ^{2}+2j^{2}\epsilon +2j\epsilon

3905: +4j+4j^{2}}\ ,

3906:     \quad \mbox {subset II}

3907: $$

3908: $$

3909: \xi_{j}^{(2)}=-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon +\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{ \epsilon

3910: ^{2}

3911:     + 2\epsilon + 1 + 4j^{2} + 2j^{2}\epsilon + 4j + 2\epsilon j}\ ,

3912:     \quad \mbox {subset III}.

3913: $$

3914: For $j=0$ there is no contribution from this subset, as the exponent is

3915: negative.

3916: After matching the zero modes to the dissipative range, one has to

3917: guarantee matching at the outer scale $L$. The condition to be fulfilled is

3918: that

3919: the sum of the zero-modes with the inhomogeneous solutions (whose exponents

3920: are

3921: 2-$\epsilon$) must give $\B C(\B r)\to 0$ as $|\B r|\to L$. Obviously this

3922: means

3923: that

3924: the forcing must have a projection on any sector $\B B_{q,jm}$ for which

3925: $C^{(2)}_{q,jm}$ is nonzero.

3926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3927: %%

3928: %

3929: % Section VI - Summary and conclusions

3930: %

3931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3932: %%

3933: \subsubsection{Summary and Conclusions}

3934: The results of this section should be examined in the light of the

3935: previous section on  passive scalars. That passive scalar case afforded

3936: only perturbative calculation of anomalous exponents in all

3937: anisotropic sectors. The present example offers exact,

3938: non-perturbative calculations, of the whole spectrum of scaling

3939: exponents that determines the covariance of a vector field in the

3940: presence of anisotropy.  The main conclusions are: (i) scaling

3941: exponents of the second order magnetic correlation functions are

3942: anomalous; (ii) they are strictly increasing with the index of $j$ of

3943: the sector, meaning that there is a tendency toward isotropization

3944: upon decreasing the scales of observation.

3945:  The equations for the magnetic covariance foliate into

3946: independent closed equations for each set of irreducible

3947: representations of the SO(3) group. Moreover, scaling properties of

3948: the zero-modes do not show any dependence on the $q$ index labeling

3949: projections on different irreducible representations of the SO(3)

3950: groups for each fixed $(j,m)$. The consequence of the latter

3951: property is that transversal and longitudinal correlation have

3952: the same scaling exponents within each anisotropic sector.

3953: 

3954: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3955: %%

3956: %

3957: % Chapter 8 - Analytical analysis: the linear pressure model

3958: %

3959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3960: %%

3961: \subsection{The Linear Pressure Model}

3962: \label{chap:linearP}

3963: In this subsection we discuss the scaling exponents

3964: characterizing the power-law behavior of

3965:   the anisotropic components of correlation functions in turbulent systems

3966:   with pressure, exploring the fundamental question whether

3967: also for such systems the scaling exponents increase as $j$

3968: increases, or they are bounded from above.

3969:   The equations of motion in systems with pressure contain nonlocal

3970: integrals over all space. One could argue that the requirement of

3971: convergence of these integrals bounds the exponents from above. It is

3972: shown here on the basis of a solvable model (the ``Linear Pressure

3973: Model"), that this is not necessarily the case. The model described  here

3974: is of a passive vector advection by a rapidly varying velocity

3975: field \cite{ara01}. The advected vector field is divergent free and the

3976: equation contains a pressure term that maintains this condition.

3977: The zero modes of the second order correlation function are found

3978: in all the sectors of the symmetry group. We show that the

3979: spectrum of scaling exponents can increase with $j$ without

3980:   bounds, while preserving finite integrals. The conclusion is that

3981:   contributions from higher and higher anisotropic sectors can disappear

3982:   faster and faster upon decreasing the scales also in systems with

3983:   pressure.

3984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3985: To demonstrate that, consider a

3986: typical integral term of the form,

3987: \begin{equation}

3988: \label{eq:ex}

3989:   \int\!\! d\B y\, G(\B r-\B y) C(\B y) \ .

3990: \end{equation}

3991: Here $G(\B r) = -1/(4\pi r)$ is the infinite domain Green

3992: function of the Laplacian operator, and $C(\B r)$ is some

3993: statistical object which is expected to be scale invariant in the

3994: inertial range. If $C(\B r)$ has an infrared cross over at scale

3995: $L$ (or equivalently, the integral has an infrared cutoff at

3996: scale $L$), then the above expression will not be a pure power

3997: law of $r$, not even inside the inertial range. Then how is it

3998: possible that such an expression will cancel out a local term of

3999: $C(\B r)$, as is required by the typical equations of motion?

4000: This puzzle has led in the past to the introduction of the

4001: concept of ``window of locality'' \cite{lvo95c,fuk00}. The window

4002: of locality is the range for the scaling exponents in which no

4003: divergence occurs, even if the cross over length $L$ is taken to

4004: infinity. For these exponents integrals of type (\ref{eq:ex}) are

4005: dominated by the range of integration $y\approx r$ and are

4006: therefore termed ``local". In a ``local" theory no infrared

4007: cutoff is called for.

4008: 

4009: In this subsection we present solutions for the scaling exponents

4010: in the anisotropic sectors of a linear model of turbulence with

4011: pressure. 

4012: This model reveals two

4013: mechanisms that allow an unbounded spectrum of scaling exponents.

4014: First, a careful analysis of the window of locality in the

4015: anisotropic sectors shows that it widens as $j$ increases. We

4016: always have a leading scaling exponent within the window of

4017: locality. Secondly, there is a more subtle mechanism that comes

4018: to play when sub-leading exponents exist outside the window of

4019: locality. In these cases we show that there exist counter-terms

4020: in the exact solution (not the zero modes!) which maintain the

4021: locality of the integrals. The bottom line is that in these

4022: models the anisotropic exponents are unbounded from above leading

4023: to a fast decay of the anisotropic contributions in the inertial

4024: range.

4025: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4026:  The Linear Pressure model captures some of the

4027:  aspects of the pressure term in Navier-Stokes turbulence, while being

4028:  a linear and therefore much simpler problem. The non linearity of the

4029:  Navier-Stokes equation is replaced by an advecting Kraichnan field

4030:  $\B u(\B x,t)$ and an advected field $\B v(\B x,t)$. The advecting

4031:  field $\B u(\B x, t)$ is taken, as before, the Kraichnan field

4032:  (\ref{W1}).  Both fields are assumed incompressible. The equation

4033:  of motion for the vector field $v^\alpha(\B x, t)$ is:

4034: \begin{eqnarray}

4035:     \partial_t v^\alpha + u^\mu \partial_\mu v^\alpha +

4036:         \partial^\alpha p - \kappa \partial^2 v^\alpha &=& f^\alpha \ ,

4037:         \label{eq:v-p} \\

4038:     \partial_\alpha v^\alpha = \partial_\alpha u^\alpha &=& 0 \ .

4039: \end{eqnarray}

4040: In  this equation, $\B f(\B x,t)$

4041: is the same as the one in Eq.~(\ref{eq:B}).

4042:  Analyticity of $\B f(\B x,t)$ is an

4043: important requirement. It means that $A^{\alpha\beta}(\B x)$ can

4044: be expanded for small $|\B x|$ as a power series in $x^\alpha$;

4045: as a result its leading contribution in the $j$-sector is

4046: proportional to $x^{j-2}$, given by

4047: $\partial^\alpha\partial^\beta x^j Y_{j m}(\hat{\B x})$. To

4048: see that this is the leading contribution the reader can consult

4049: the general discussion of the construction of the irreducible

4050: representations in Ref.\cite{ara99b}. All other analytic

4051: contributions contain less derivatives and are therefore of

4052: higher order in $x$.

4053: 

4054: In order to derive the statistical equations of the correlation

4055: function of $v^\alpha(\B x,t)$, we need a version of (\ref{eq:v-p})

4056: without the pressure term. Following the standard treatment of the

4057: pressure term in Navier-Stokes equation, we take the divergence of

4058: (\ref{eq:v-p}) and arrive at,

4059: $$

4060:     \partial_\nu \partial_\mu u^\mu v^\nu +

4061:         \partial^2 p = 0 \ .

4062: $$

4063: The Laplace equation is now inverted using the Green function of

4064: infinite domain with zero-at-infinity boundary conditions:

4065: $$

4066:   p(\B x) = -\int\!\! d\B y\, G (\B x - \B y)

4067:      \partial_\nu \partial_\mu u^\mu(\B y) v^\nu(\B y) \ ,$$

4068: with 

4069:   $ G(\B x) \equiv -1/4\pi  x $.

4070: With this expression for $p(\B x)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:v-p}) can be

4071: rewritten as:

4072: \begin{eqnarray}

4073:  \partial_t v^\alpha(\B x, t)

4074:      &+& u^\mu(\B x,t) \partial_\mu v^\alpha(\B x,t)

4075: - \partial^\alpha_{(\B x)} \int\!\! d\B y\,

4076:     G(\B x-\B y)\partial_\nu\partial_\mu u^\mu(\B y) v^\nu(\B y)

4077:  \nonumber\\&-& \kappa \partial^2 v^\alpha(\B x,t) = f^\alpha(\B x,t) \ .

4078: \nonumber 

4079: \end{eqnarray}

4080: In \cite{ara01} the

4081: equation of motion for  the 2-point

4082: correlation function,$

4083:     C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \equiv

4084:        \left<v^\alpha(\B x+\B r) v^\beta(\B x) \right>$

4085: was found:

4086: \begin{eqnarray}

4087:   && \partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) - T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)

4088:     -T^{\beta\alpha}(-\B r)

4089: + \int\!\!d\B y\, G(\B r - \B y) \partial^\beta\partial_\nu

4090:      T^{\alpha\nu}(\B y)\nonumber\\

4091:   &&+ \int\!\!d\B y\, G(-\B r - \B y) \partial^\alpha\partial_\nu

4092:         T^{\beta\nu}(\B y)  -2\kappa\partial^2 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B

4093: r)\nonumber\\

4094:   && = \left<v^\alpha(\B x+\B r) f^\beta(\B x)\right> +

4095:        \left<v^\beta(\B x) f^\alpha(\B x+\B r)\right> \ . \nonumber

4096: \end{eqnarray}

4097: where

4098: to simplify the equations we have  defined an auxiliary function

4099: $T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$:

4100:     $$

4101:   T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \equiv

4102:     \partial_\mu^{(r)} \left< v^\alpha(\B x+\B r) u^\mu(\B x) v^\beta(\B x)

4103:       \right> \ .

4104: $$

4105: This equation is identical to the equation for the second

4106: order correlation function in the usual Navier-Stokes turbulence,

4107: provided that $u^\mu$ is replaced with $v^\mu$ in

4108: the expression above. Indeed, the vexing problem that we face is

4109: being made very clear: if the triple correlation function has a

4110: power law dependence on $\B r$ with an arbitrarily large

4111: exponent, how can the integral converge in the infrared? One

4112: possibility is that the scaling exponent of $T^{\alpha\beta}(\B

4113: r)$ is sufficiently low, making the integral convergent. The

4114: other possibility is that the correlation function is scale

4115: invariant only in the inertial range and vanishes quickly after

4116: that, which is equivalent to the introduction of an infrared

4117: cutoff. However the integral terms in the equation probe the

4118: correlation function throughout the entire space.  Therefore, a

4119: cross over behavior of the correlation function at the outer

4120: scale $L$, seems to contradict a pure scaling behavior of the

4121: correlation function in the inertial range itself. This in turn

4122: implies the saturation of the anisotropic scaling exponents.

4123: 

4124: To proceed, we use the fact that the field $\B u(\B x,t)$, as well as

4125: the forcing, are Gaussian white noises with correlation given by

4126: Eq.~(\ref{kappa1}). This enables us to express

4127: $T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ and the correlation of the force in terms of

4128: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ and $A^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$. One can use

4129:  the well known method of Gaussian integration

4130: by parts \cite{fri95} which leads to the final equations (see also

4131: appendix of (\cite{ara01}):

4132: \begin{eqnarray} 

4133:   \partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) &=& T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) +

4134:   T^{\beta\alpha}(-\B r) - \int\!\!d\B y\, G(\B r - \B y)

4135:   \partial^\beta\partial_\nu T^{\alpha\nu}(\B y) \nonumber \\ &-&

4136:   \int\!\!d\B y\, G(-\B r - \B y) \partial^\alpha\partial_\nu

4137:   T^{\beta\nu}(\B y) + 2\kappa\partial^2 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) +

4138: A^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \ , \label{eq:dtC} \\ T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)

4139:   &=& -\frac{1}{2}K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu

4140:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) + \frac{1}{2}\partial^\alpha_{(\B r)} \int\!\!

4141:   d\B y\, G(\B r-\B y) \partial_\tau\Big[ K^{\mu\nu}(\B y)

4142:   \partial_\mu \partial_\nu C^{\tau\beta}(\B y) \Big] \nonumber \\ &-&

4143:   \frac{1}{2} \int \!\! d\B y\, G(\B y) \partial^\beta\partial_\tau

4144:   \Big[ K^{\mu\nu}(\B y)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^{\alpha\tau}(\B

4145:   r-\B y)\Big] \ . \label{eq:Tab}

4146: \end{eqnarray}

4147: These equations have to be supplemented with two more equations that

4148: follow directly from the definition of $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$:

4149: $$

4150:  \partial_\alpha C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) = 0 \ ,

4151:  \quad

4152:   C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) = C^{\beta\alpha}(-\B r) \ .

4153: $$

4154: Finally we note that Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dtC},\ref{eq:Tab}) can be

4155: interpreted in a transparent way, utilizing two projection

4156: operators which maintain the RHS of \Eq{eq:dtC} divergence free

4157: in both indices. To define them, let us consider a tensor field

4158: $X^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ which vanishes sufficiently fast at

4159: infinity. Then the two projection operators $\PLO$ and $\PRO$ are

4160: defined by:

4161: \begin{eqnarray}

4162:   \PLO X^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) &\equiv& X^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) -

4163:      \partial^\alpha_{(r)}\int d\B y\, G(\B r-\B y)

4164:         \partial_\mu  X^{\mu\beta}(\B y) \ , \nonumber \\

4165:   \PRO X^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) &\equiv& X^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) -

4166:      \partial^\beta_{(r)}\int d\B y\, G(\B r-\B y)

4167:          \partial_\mu  X^{\alpha\mu}(\B y) \ .\nonumber

4168: \end{eqnarray}

4169: We observe that $\PLO X^{\alpha\beta}$ and $\PRO X^{\alpha\beta}$

4170: are divergence free in the left and right indices respectively.

4171: Using these operators we can rewrite

4172: Eqs.(\ref{eq:dtC}-\ref{eq:Tab}) in the form

4173: \be

4174:   \partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) =

4175:     \PRO T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) + \PRO T^{\beta\alpha}(-\B r)

4176:    + 2 \kappa\partial^2 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)

4177:     + A^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \ , \label{eq:dtC1}  \ee

4178: \be

4179:   T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) = -\frac{1}{2} \PLO

4180: K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu

4181:     C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)

4182:     - \frac{1}{2} \int \!\! d\B y\, G(\B y) \partial^\beta\partial_\tau

4183:     \Big[ K^{\mu\nu}(\B y)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu

4184:         C^{\alpha\tau}(\B r-\B y)\Big] \ . \label{eq:Tab1}

4185: \ee

4186: The projection in \Eq{eq:Tab1} guarantees that

4187: $T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ is divergence free in its left index,

4188: while the projection in \Eq{eq:dtC1} guarantees divergence

4189: freedom in the right index.

4190: 

4191: Not all the terms in these equations are of the same nature. The

4192: integrals due to the projection operator are easy to deal with by

4193: applying a Laplacian on them. For example,

4194: $

4195:   \partial^2 \PRO T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) = \partial^2 T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)

4196:      - \partial^\beta \partial_\nu T^{\alpha\nu}(\B r) \ $.

4197: On the other hand, there seems to be no way to eliminate the last

4198: integral in \Eq{eq:Tab1}, and therefore we shall refer to it as

4199: the ``non-trivial integral''.  Only when the velocity

4200: scaling exponents in (\ref{kappa1}) are  $\epsilon=0$ and $\epsilon=2$ it

4201: trivializes: the integral vanishes when $\epsilon=0$ and is

4202: proportional to $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ when $\epsilon=2$.

4203: Unfortunately, in these extreme cases also the projection

4204: operator trivializes, and the effect of the pressure cannot be

4205: adequately assessed. We prefer to study the problem for a generic

4206: value $\epsilon$ for which the incompressibility constraint and the

4207: pressure terms are non-trivial.

4208: 

4209: We deal with the this problem head-on in

4210: Sect.\ref{sec:zeromodes}. Due to the non-trivial integral, we

4211: will not be able to provide a full solution of

4212: $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$, but only of the zero modes.  However

4213: before doing so we would like to study a model that affords an

4214: exact solution in order to understand in detail the issues at

4215: hand. In the next section we therefore consider a simplified

4216: model of the Linear Pressure model, yet posing much of the same

4217: riddle.

4218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4219: \subsubsection{An exactly Solvable Toy model} \label{sec:Toy}

4220: 

4221: We construct a toy model which is inspired by equations

4222: (\ref{eq:dtC}, \ref{eq:Tab}) for the correlation function in the

4223: Linear Pressure model. Within this model we demonstrate the

4224: strategy of dealing with the non-local pressure term. Since it is

4225: a simplification of the {\em statistical} equation of the Linear

4226: Pressure model, the toy model has no obvious underlying dynamical

4227: equation.

4228: 

4229: In the toy model, we are looking for a ``correlation function''

4230: $C^\alpha(\B r)$, whose equations of motion are:

4231: \begin{eqnarray}

4232: &&  \partial_t C^{\alpha}(\B r) =

4233:      -K^{\mu\nu}(\B r)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\alpha(\B r) \label{eq:C}

4234:  -\partial^\alpha_{(r)} \int \!\! d\B x G(\B r-\B x)

4235: \partial_\tau

4236:       K^{\mu\nu}(\B x)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\tau(\B x)\nonumber\\&&

4237: +\ \kappa \partial^2 C^\alpha(\B r)+A^\alpha(\B r/L)  \ , \nonumber

4238: \\

4239: && \partial_\alpha C^\alpha(\B r) = 0 \label{eq:toy-incomp} \ .

4240: \end{eqnarray}

4241: Here $A^\alpha(\B x)$ is a one-index analog of the correlation

4242: function of the original forces $A^{\alpha\beta}(\B x)$.

4243: Accordingly, we take it anisotropic, analytic in $x^\alpha$ and

4244: rapidly vanishing for $ x \gg 1$. As in the previous model,

4245: also here analyticity requires that the leading contribution for

4246: small $ x$ is proportional to $\partial^\alpha x^j Y_{j

4247: m}(\hat{\B x})$ in the $j$-sector. Accordingly it is of order

4248: $x^{j-1}$.

4249: 

4250: The toy model is simpler than the Linear Pressure model in two

4251: aspects: First, the ``correlation function'', $C^\alpha(\B r)$

4252: has one index instead of two and therefore can be represented by

4253: a smaller number of scalar functions. Second, the unpleasant

4254: non-trivial term of the Linear Pressure model is absent. This

4255: will allow us to solve the model exactly for every value of

4256: $\epsilon$. Nevertheless, the toy model confronts us with the same

4257: conceptual problems that exist in the Linear Pressure model and

4258: in NS: can a scale invariant solution in the inertial range with

4259: a cross over to a decaying solution at scale $L$, be consistent

4260: with the integral term? If not, is there a saturation of the

4261: anisotropic exponents?

4262: 

4263: \Eq{eq:C} can be rewritten in terms of a new projection operator

4264: $\PO$, which projects a vector $X^\alpha(\B r)$ on its divergence

4265: free part:

4266: $$

4267:   \partial_t C^{\alpha} =

4268:     -\PO \Big[ K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\alpha \Big]

4269:      + \kappa \partial^2 C^\alpha +A^\alpha  \ ,

4270: $$

4271: where

4272: $$

4273:   \PO X^\alpha(\B r) \equiv X^\alpha(\B r) -

4274:     \partial^\alpha

4275:  \int\!\! d\B y\, G(\B r-\B y)\partial_\mu X^\mu(\B y)

4276: $$

4277: We shall solve this integro-differential equation by first

4278: turning it into a PDE using the Laplacian operator, and then

4279: turning it into a set of decoupled ODE's using the SO($3$)

4280: decomposition.

4281: As in the Linear Pressure model, the non locality of the

4282: projection operator can be removed by considering a differential

4283: version of the operator:

4284: $$

4285:   \partial^2 \PO T^\alpha(\B r) = \partial^2 T^\alpha(\B r) -

4286:      \partial^\alpha \partial_\mu T^\mu(\B r) \ .

4287: $$

4288: In stationary condition $\partial_t C^\alpha=0$, and therefore the

4289: differential form of the toy model is given by:

4290: \begin{eqnarray}

4291:  && \partial^2 \PO

4292:   \Big[K^{\mu\nu}(\B r)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\alpha(\B r)\Big] =

4293: \partial^2 K^{\mu\nu}(\B r)

4294:       \partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\alpha(\B r) -

4295:     \partial^\alpha \partial_\tau

4296:           K^{\mu\nu}(\B r)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\tau(\B r)\nonumber\\

4297:  &&= \kappa \partial^2\partial^2 C^\alpha(\B r) +\partial^2 A^\alpha(\B r)

4298: \ ,

4299:          \label{eq:diff-C}  \\

4300:    &&\partial_\alpha C^\alpha(\B r) = 0 \ \nonumber .

4301: \end{eqnarray}

4302: We have reached a linear PDE of order 4. This PDE will be solved

4303: by exploiting its symmetries, i.e., isotropy and parity

4304: conservation, as demonstrated in the next subsection.

4305: 

4306: \Eq{eq:diff-C} and the incompressibility condition of

4307: $C^\alpha(\B r)$ are both isotropic and parity conserving.

4308: Therefore, if we expand $C^\alpha(\B r)$ in terms of spherical

4309: vectors with a definite behavior under rotations and under

4310: reflections, we would get a set of decoupled ODE's for their

4311: coefficients.

4312: 

4313: For each sector $(j,m), j>0$ of SO($3$) we have three

4314: spherical vectors:

4315: \begin{eqnarray}

4316:   B_{1jm}^\alpha(\hat{\B r}) &\equiv& r^{-j-1}r^\alpha \Phi_{j m}(\B r) \

4317: ,

4318:     \nonumber \\

4319:   B_{2jm}^\alpha(\hat{\B r}) &\equiv&

4320:       r^{-j+1}\partial^\alpha \Phi_{j m}(\B r) \ ,

4321:     \nonumber \\

4322:   B_{3jm}^\alpha(\hat{\B r}) &\equiv& r^{-j}

4323:     \epsilon^{\alpha\mu\nu}r_\mu\partial_\nu \Phi_{j m}(\B r) \ .

4324: \nonumber

4325: \end{eqnarray}

4326: Here $\Phi_{j m}(\B r)=r^j Y_{j m}(\hat{\B r})$, and see

4327: \cite{ara99b} for further details. The first two spherical vectors

4328: have a different parity than the third vector, hence the

4329: equations for their coefficients are decoupled from the equation

4330: for the third coefficient. In the following, we shall consider

4331: the equations for the first two coefficients only, as they have a

4332: richer structure and larger resemblance to the Linear Pressure

4333: model. Finally note that the isotropic sector, i.e., $j=0$, is

4334: identically zero. To see why, notice that in this special sector

4335: there is only one spherical vector, $B_{100}^\alpha(\hat{\B r})

4336: \equiv r^{-1}r^\alpha$. Hence the isotropic part of $C^\alpha(\B

4337: r)$ is given by $c(r)r^{-1}r^\alpha$, $c(r)$ being some scalar

4338: function of $r$. But then the incompressibility condition

4339: (\ref{eq:toy-incomp}) implies that $c(r) \sim r^{-2}$, which has

4340: a UV divergence. We therefore conclude that $c(r)=0$, and

4341: restrict the  calculation to $j>0$.

4342: 

4343: By expanding $C^\alpha(\B r)$ in terms of the spherical vectors

4344: $\B B_{1jm}, \B B_{2jm}$, we obtain a set of ODEs (decoupled in the

4345: $(j,m)$ labels) for the scalar functions that are the

4346: coefficients of these vectors in the expansion. The equations for

4347: these coefficients can thus be written in terms of matrices and

4348: column vectors. To simplify the calculations, we find the matrix

4349: forms of the Kraichnan operator and of the Laplacian of the

4350: projection operator separately, and only then combine the two

4351: results to one. \vskip 0.3 cm

4352: \subsubsection{The Matrix Form of the  Operators and the Solution of the Toy

4353: Model}

4354: In this subsection we derive the matrix form of the Kraichnan operator

4355: and of the Laplacian of the Projection operator in each $j$ sector.

4356: To obtain the matrix of the Kraichnan operator in the basis of

4357: $\B B_{1jm}, \B B_{2jm}$, we expand $C^\alpha(\B r)$:

4358: $$

4359:   C^\alpha(\B r) =

4360:     c_1(r)B_{1jm}^\alpha(\hat{\B r}) + c_2(r)B_{2jm}^\alpha(\hat{\B r}) \ .

4361: $$ in appendix (\ref{app:lp1}) we show how to find the operator

4362: on $ C^\alpha(\B r) $ in a matrix form

4363: which results in the final equation for $c_1(r)$ and $c_2(r)$:

4364: \begin{eqnarray}

4365:   && r^\epsilon \MM_4 \VecII{c^{(4)}_1}{c^{(4)}_2} +

4366:     r^{\epsilon-1} \MM_3 \VecII{c^{(3)}_1}{c^{(3)}_2} +

4367:     r^{\epsilon-2} \MM_2 \VecII{c^{(2)}_1}{c^{(2)}_2}  \nonumber \\

4368:   && \quad + r^{\epsilon-3} \MM_1 \VecII{c^{(1)}_1}{c^{(1)}_2} +

4369:     r^{\epsilon-4} \MM_0 \VecII{c_1}{c_2} =   \VecII{\rho_1}{\rho_2} \ .

4370: \label{eq:C-mat}

4371: \end{eqnarray}

4372: In addition  also the incompressibility constraint $\partial_\alpha

4373: C^\alpha(\B r)=0$, can be expressed as a relation between

4374: $c_1(r)$ and $c_2(r)$:

4375: \begin{equation}

4376: \label{eq:incomp}

4377:   c'_1 + 2\frac{c_1}{r} + j c'_2 - j(j-1)\frac{c_2}{r} = 0 \ .

4378: \end{equation}

4379: This constraint has to be taken into account when solving

4380: \Eq{eq:C-mat}.

4381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4382: %\subsubsection{Solving the toy model}

4383: %\label{sec:solution}

4384: The solution of \Eq{eq:C-mat} is somewhat tricky due to the

4385: additional constraint (\ref{eq:incomp}). Seemingly the two

4386: unknowns $c_1(r), c_2(r)$ are over determined by the three

4387: equations (\ref{eq:C-mat}, \ref{eq:incomp}), yet this is not the

4388: case for the two equations (\ref{eq:C-mat}) are not independent.

4389: To see that this is the case and find the solution, it is

4390: advantageous to work in the new basis

4391: $$

4392:   d_1 = c_1 + j c_2 \ , \qquad

4393:   d_2 = -2c_1 + j(j-1)c_2 \ .$$

4394: In this basis the incompressibility constraint becomes very

4395: simple: $d_2 = rd_1' $,

4396: allowing us to express $d_2$ and its derivatives in terms of

4397: $d_1$. To do that in the framework of the matrix notation, we

4398: define the transformation matrix $\UM$:

4399: $$

4400:   \UM \equiv \MatII{1}{j}{-2}{j(j-1)} \ ,

4401: \qquad

4402:   \UM^{-1} = \frac{1}{j(j+1)}\MatII{j(j-1)}{-j}{2}{1} \ ,

4403: $$

4404: so that, $ \VecII{d_1}{d_2} = \UM \VecII{c_1}{c_2} \ .$

4405: The equations of $d_i(r)$ are the same as the equations for

4406: $c_i(r)$, with the matrices $\MM_i$ replaced by

4407: $

4408:   \NM_i \equiv \UM \MM_i \UM^{-1} \ ,

4409: $

4410: and the sources $\rho_i$ replaced by

4411: $$

4412:   \VecII{\rho^*_1}{\rho^*_2} = \UM \VecII{\rho_1}{\rho_2} \ .

4413: $$

4414: Notice that a divergence free forcing $A^\alpha(\B r)$ will cause

4415: $\rho^*_1(r), \rho^*_2(r)$ to be related to each other in the

4416: same way that $d_1(r), d_2(r)$ are related to each other, i.e.,

4417: $

4418:   \rho^*_2 = r(\rho^*_1)' \ .

4419: $

4420: Next, we perform the following replacements:

4421: %\begin{eqnarray*}

4422: %  d_2       &=& rd^{(1)}_1 \ , \\

4423: %  d_2^{(1)} &=& rd^{(2)}_1 + d^{(1)}_1 \ , \\

4424: %  d_2^{(2)} &=& rd^{(3)}_1 + 2d^{(2)}_1 \ , \\

4425: %  d_2^{(3)} &=& rd^{(4)}_1 + 3d^{(3)}_1 \ , \\

4426: %  d_2^{(4)} &=& rd^{(5)}_1 + 4d^{(3)}_1 \ .

4427: %\end{eqnarray*}

4428: $$

4429:   d_2       = rd^{(1)}_1, \quad

4430:   d_2^{(1)} = rd^{(2)}_1 + d^{(1)}_1, \quad

4431:   d_2^{(2)} = rd^{(3)}_1 + 2d^{(2)}_1, $$

4432: $$  d_2^{(3)} = rd^{(4)}_1 + 3d^{(3)}_1, \quad

4433:   d_2^{(4)} = rd^{(5)}_1 + 4d^{(3)}_1.

4434: $$

4435: We get an equation written entirely in terms of the function

4436: $d_1(r)$ and its derivatives:

4437: \be

4438: r^{\epsilon}(r V_5 d^{(5)}_1 +  V_4 d^{(4)}_1 +

4439: r^{-1}V_3 d^{(3)}_1

4440:   + r^{-2}V_2 d^{(2)}_1  + r^{-3}V_1 d^{(1)}_1 +

4441: r^{-4}V_0 d_1) =

4442:     \VecII{\rho^*_1}{\rho^*_2}, \label{V5}

4443: \ee

4444: where $V_i$ are two dimensional vectors given by:

4445: \begin{eqnarray}

4446:   V_5 \equiv \NM_4 \VecII{0}{1}, \nonumber  \qquad

4447:   V_4 \equiv \NM_4 \VecII{1}{4} + \NM_3\VecII{0}{1}, \qquad

4448:   V_3 \equiv \NM_3 \VecII{1}{3} + \NM_2\VecII{0}{1}, \\

4449:   V_2 \equiv \NM_2 \VecII{1}{2} + \NM_1\VecII{0}{1}, \qquad

4450:   V_1 \equiv \NM_1 \VecII{1}{1} + \NM_0\VecII{0}{1}, \qquad

4451:   V_0 \equiv \NM_0 \VecII{1}{0}. \nonumber

4452: \end{eqnarray}

4453: %\end{multicols}

4454: %\sepBR{8.6}{-0.3}{.5} \\

4455: Their explicit values can be found in \cite{ara01}.

4456: %\begin{eqnarray*}%

4457: %  V_5 &=& D\VecII{0}{2} \ , \\

4458: %  V_4 &=& D\VecII{2}{16+6\epsilon} \ , \\

4459: %  V_3 &=& D\VecII{16+4\epsilon}{-4j^2 - 4j + 32 \epsilon

4460: %    + 8 - \epsilon j^2 - \epsilon j + 6\epsilon^2} \ , \\

4461: %  V_2 &=& D\VecII{-4j^2 - 4j + 20\epsilon + 24 - \epsilon j^2 -\epsilon j +

4462: %2\epsilon^2}

4463: %                {-8\epsilon j^2 - 8\epsilon j - 4\epsilon - 48 +

4464: %22\epsilon^2

4465: %                  -2\epsilon^2 j^2 - 2\epsilon^2 j + 2\epsilon^3} \ , \\

4466: %  V_1 &=& D\VecII{-(\epsilon +2)(-6\epsilon + \epsilon j^2 + \epsilon j +

4467: %4j^2 + 4j)}

4468: %                {(\epsilon+2)(6\epsilon^2 - \epsilon^2j^2 - \epsilon^2 j-

4469: %\epsilon j^2 - 18\epsilon

4470: %                 - \epsilon j + j^4 + 11j^2 + 2j^3 + 10j)} \ , \\

4471: %  V_0 &=& D\VecII{j(j-1)(j+2)(j+1)(\epsilon+2)}

4472: %                {j(\epsilon+2)(\epsilon-4)(j-1)(j+2)(j+1)} \ .

4473: %\end{eqnarray*}

4474: %\rightline{\sepTL{8.7}{0.4}{0}}

4475: %\begin{multicols}{2}

4476: The Eq.~(\ref{V5})  are for a column vector, and can be regarded as

4477: two scalar differential equations that we refer to as the

4478: ``upper" and the ``lower". The upper ODE is of the fourth order,

4479: while the lower ODE is of fifth order. Non surprisingly, the lower

4480: equation is the first derivative of the upper equation, provided

4481: that $A^\alpha(\B r)$ is divergence free. Hence the two equations

4482: are dependent, and we restrict the  attention to the upper

4483: equation.  To simplify it, we divide both sides by $Dr^\epsilon$,

4484: replace $d_1(r)$ by $\psi(r)$ and define the RHS to be the

4485: function $S(r)$:

4486: \begin{equation}

4487:   S(r)\equiv D^{-1}r^{-\epsilon}\rho^*_1(r) \ .

4488: \label{eq:S(r)}

4489: \end{equation}

4490: After doing so, we reach the following equation:

4491: \begin{equation}

4492:   \psi^{(4)} + a_3\frac{\psi^{(3)}}{r} + a_2\frac{\psi^{(2)}}{r^2} +

4493:     a_1 \frac{\psi^{(1)}}{r^3} + a_0 \frac{\psi}{r^4} =S(r) \ .

4494: \label{eq:psi}

4495: \end{equation}

4496: Its homogeneous solution is easily found once we substitute,

4497: $

4498:   \psi(r) = \psi_0 r^\xi$.

4499: The scaling exponents are the roots of the polynomial,

4500: \begin{eqnarray}

4501: \label{def:Polynomial}

4502:    P(\xi) &=& \xi(\xi-1)(\xi-2)(\xi-3)

4503:    + a_3\xi(\xi-1)(\xi-2) + a_2\xi(\xi-1) + a_1\xi + a_0 \ .

4504: \nonumber

4505: \end{eqnarray}

4506: The polynomial roots are found to be real and non-degenerate. Two

4507: of them are positive while the other two are negative. They are

4508: given  by:

4509: \begin{equation}

4510: \label{def:exponents}

4511:   \xi_j(i) = -\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon \pm \frac{1}{2}

4512:      \sqrt{A(j,\epsilon) \pm \sqrt{B(j,\epsilon)}} \

4513:  \qquad {\mbox i=1,2,3,4} ,

4514: %  \xi_2 &=& -\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon + \frac{1}{2}

4515: %     \sqrt{A(j,\epsilon) - \sqrt{B(j,\epsilon)}} \ , \nonumber \\

4516: %  \xi_3 &=& -\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon - \frac{1}{2}

4517: %     \sqrt{A(j,\epsilon) - \sqrt{B(j,\epsilon)}} \ , \nonumber \\

4518: %  \xi_4 &=& -\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon - \frac{1}{2}

4519: %     \sqrt{A(j,\epsilon) + \sqrt{B(j,\epsilon)}} \ , \nonumber

4520: \end{equation}

4521: where,

4522: $$

4523:   A(j,\epsilon) \equiv \epsilon^2 +\epsilon j^2 + \epsilon j - 2\epsilon +

4524: 5 + 4j

4525:     + 4j^2 \ ,$$ and $$

4526:   B(j,\epsilon) \equiv  -8\epsilon^2j - 7\epsilon^2j^2 + 16\epsilon^2 +

4527: 2\epsilon^2j^3

4528:     + \epsilon^2j^4  - 8\epsilon j^2 - 8\epsilon j - 32\epsilon + 16 + 64j

4529: +64j^2.

4530: $$

4531: In the limit $\epsilon \to 0$ the roots become, in decreasing order:

4532: $$

4533:    \xi_j(1) = j+1, \qquad

4534:  \xi_j(2) = j-1, \qquad

4535:  \xi_j(3) = -j, \qquad

4536:  \xi_j(4) = -j-2, 

4537:  $$

4538: Fig.~(\ref{fig:toy1})

4539:  displays the first few exponents as a function of $\epsilon$.

4540: We note that the spectrum has no sign of saturation as $j$

4541: increases. Before we discuss the meaning of this observation we

4542: will make sure that these solutions are physically relevant and

4543: participate in the full (exact) solution including boundary

4544: conditions.

4545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4546: \begin{figure}

4547: %\epsfxsize=8cm 

4548: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{linearP1.eps}

4549: \caption{Scaling exponents of the first few $j$s  as a function of

4550: $\epsilon$. Top panels show:  set 1 (left);  set 2 (right). Bottom panel:

4551:  set 3 (left);  set 4 (right)}\label{fig:toy1}

4552: \end{figure}

4553: The general solution of \Eq{eq:psi} is traditionally given as the

4554: sum of a special solution of the non-homogeneous equation plus a

4555: linear combination of the zero modes. However when attempting to

4556: match the solution to the boundary conditions it is convenient to

4557: represent it as:

4558: \begin{equation}

4559: \label{eq:psi-general-solution}

4560:  \psi(r) = \sum_{i=1}^4

4561:   \frac{r^{\xi_j(i)}}{\underbrace{ (\xi_j(i)-\xi_j(1)) \ldots

4562:        (\xi_j(i)-\xi_j(4))}_{\scriptsize\mbox{all {\em different} roots}}}

4563:    \int_{m_i}^r \!\! dx \, x^{3-\xi_j(i)}\, S(x) \ ,

4564: \end{equation}

4565: where the free parameters of the solution are the four constants

4566: $m_i$. Indeed a change in $m_i$ is equivalent to adding to the

4567: solution a term proportional to $ r^{\xi_j(i)}$. In the next subsection we

4568: find the values of $m_i$ to match the boundary conditions, and

4569: discuss the properties of the solution. \vskip 0.3 cm

4570:  \subsubsection{Boundary Conditions and Inertial-range Behavior}

4571: From Eq.(\ref{eq:psi-general-solution}) it is clear that the only

4572: values of $m_i$ that guarantee that the solution remains finite

4573: as $r\to 0$ and that it decays as $r\to\infty$ are

4574: $m_1=m_2=+\infty$, $m_3=m_4 = 0$:

4575: \begin{eqnarray}

4576: \psi(r) =  

4577: -\frac{r^{\xi_j(1)}}{(\xi_j(1)-\xi_j(2))(\xi_j(1)-\xi_j(3))(\xi_j(1)-\xi_j(4

4578: ))}

4579:   \int_r^\infty \!\! dx \, x^{3-\xi_j(1)}\, S(x) \nonumber \\

4580: -\frac{r^{\xi_j(2)}}{(\xi_j(2)-\xi_j(1))(\xi_j(2)-\xi_j(3))(\xi_j(2)-\xi_j(4

4581: ))}

4582:   \int_r^\infty \!\! dx \, x^{3-\xi_j(2) }\, S(x) \nonumber\\

4583: +\frac{r^{\xi_j(3)}}{(\xi_j(3)-\xi_j(1))(\xi_j(3)-\xi_j(2))(\xi_j(3)-\xi_j(4

4584: ))}

4585:   \int_0^r \!\! dx \, x^{3-\xi_j(3) }\, S(x) \nonumber \\

4586: +\frac{r^{\xi_j(4)}}{(\xi_j(4)-\xi_j(1))(\xi_j(4)-\xi_j(2))(\xi_j(4)-\xi_j(3

4587: ))}

4588:   \int_0^r \!\! dx \, x^{3-\xi_j(4)}\, S(x) \ .

4589: \label{eq:fullsol}

4590: \end{eqnarray}

4591: To understand the asymptotic of this solution we find from

4592: \Eq{eq:S(r)} that for $x \ll L$, $S(x)$ has a leading term which

4593: goes like $x^{j-1-\epsilon}$, whereas for for $x \gg L$, $S(x)$

4594: decays rapidly. It is now straightforward to prove that for $r

4595: \ll L$, the $\xi_j(3), \xi_j(4)$ terms scale like $r^{j+3-\epsilon}$,

4596: the $\xi_j(2)$ term scales like $r^{\xi_j(2)}$ and the $\xi_j(1)$

4597: term scales like $r^{\xi_j(1)}$ for values of $\epsilon$ for which

4598: $\xi_j(1) < j+3-\epsilon$ and like $r^{j+3-\epsilon}$ otherwise. In

4599: addition it is easy to see that for $r \gg L$, $\psi(r)$ exhibits

4600: an algebraic decay: the $\xi_j(1), \xi_j(2)$ terms decay rapidly due

4601: to the decay of $S(x)$ whereas the $\xi_j(3),\xi_j(4)$ terms decay

4602: algebraically like $r^{\xi_i}$ respectively. The asymptotic of

4603: the full solution are thus given by

4604: \begin{equation}

4605:   \psi(r) \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{lcr}

4606:     r^{\xi_j(2)} &,& r \ll L \\

4607:     r^{\xi_j(3)} &,& r \gg L \end{array} \right. \ .

4608: \end{equation}

4609: The obvious conclusion is that there is no saturation in the

4610: anisotropic scaling exponents as $j$ increases. The lack of

4611: contradiction with the existence of an integral over all space

4612: has two aspects. The main one is simple and obvious. The

4613: Integro-differential equation (\ref{eq:C}) for $C^\alpha$ has a

4614: differential version (\ref{eq:diff-C}). Solving the differential

4615: version we are unaffected by any considerations of convergence of

4616: integrals and therefore the solution may contain exponents that

4617: increase with $j$ without limit. Nevertheless the full solution

4618: (\ref{eq:fullsol}) exhibits a cross over at $L$: it increases in

4619: the inertial range $r\ll L$ and decays for $r\gg L$. Thus

4620: plugging it back to the Integro-differential equation we are

4621: guaranteed that no divergence occurs.

4622: 

4623: The question why the cross-over length $L$ does not spoil the

4624: scale invariance in the inertial range still remains. The answer

4625: is found in differential form of the equation of motion, given by

4626: \Eq{eq:diff-C}. From this equation we find that the integrand is

4627: a Green's function times a Laplacian of a tensor. By definition

4628: such an integral localizes, i.e. it is fully determined by the

4629: value of the tensor at the external vector $\B r$. In the

4630: language of Eq.(\ref{eq:ex}) $A(\B y)=\nabla^2 B(\B y)$!

4631: 

4632: The second and less obvious aspect is that the window of locality

4633: widens up with $j$. This is due to the cancellations in the

4634: angular integration of the anisotropic solutions that are due to

4635: the orthogonality of the $Y_{j

4636:   m}(\hat{\B r})$ and their generalizations $B^{\alpha}_{q j

4637:   m}(\hat{\B r})$. To demonstrate this consider again the simple integral

4638: (\ref{eq:ex}), and assume that $C(\B y)$ belongs to $(j, m)$

4639: sector, i.e.

4640: $

4641:   C(\B y) =a(y) Y_{j m}(\hat{\B y})

4642: $.

4643: For $y \gg r$, we may expand the Green function in $r/y$:

4644: \begin{eqnarray}

4645:   G(\B r-\B y) &=& -\frac{1}{4\pi|\B r-\B y|} = -\frac{1}{4\pi

4646: y}\sum_{n=0}^\infty

4647:      a_n \left[\left(\frac{r}{y}\right)^2

4648:        - 2\frac{\B r \cdot \hat{\B y}}{y}\right]^n \ . \nonumber

4649: \end{eqnarray}

4650: Here $a_n$ are Taylor coefficients. Obviously the dangerous terms

4651: for the infrared convergence are those with low values of $n$.

4652: However all these terms will vanish for $n<j$ due to the

4653: angular integration against $Y_{j m}(\hat{\B y})$. The reason

4654: is that all these terms are of the form $r^{n_1} y^{n_2} (\B

4655: r\cdot \hat{\B y})^{n_3}$ with $n_3< j$. The angular part here

4656: has projections only $Y_{j' m'}$ with $j'\le k_3<j$. The

4657: first term to contribute comes when $n=j$, and is proportional

4658: to the amplitude integral $\int_r^\infty \!\! dy \, y^2 a_{j

4659: m}(y) y^{-j -1}$.  For a power law $a_{j m}(y)\sim

4660: y^\lambda$ this implies locality for

4661: $

4662:   \lambda< j-2,

4663: $,

4664: instead of $\lambda<-2$ in the isotropic sector. The lower bound

4665: of the window of locality is also extended, and a similar

4666: analysis for $y\ll r$ leads to $\lambda>-j-3$. For the toy

4667: model this translates to the window of locality

4668: $$

4669:   -j-\epsilon < \xi_j(i) < j +1 -\epsilon \ .

4670: $$ From the previous analysis we find that the leading power law of

4671: the full solution in the inertial range is $r^{\xi_j(2)}$, which

4672: is inside this ``extended'' window of locality. Nevertheless, the

4673: subleading power $r^{\xi_j(1)}$ originating from the first term in

4674: \Eq{eq:fullsol} is above this window, and its presence in the

4675: solution can be explained only using the first mechanism.

4676: 

4677: We will see when we turn back to the Linear Pressure model that

4678: both these mechanisms operate there as well, leading again to a

4679: lack of saturation in the exponents.

4680: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4681: \subsubsection{Solving the Linear Pressure Model}

4682: \label{sec:zeromodes}

4683: We now return to the Linear Pressure model.

4684: The methods used to solve it follow very close those

4685: developed for the toy model and therefore will not be described

4686: in the full way. 

4687: Contrary to the toy model where we can have the full solution

4688: in the present case we can solve only for the zero modes.

4689:  These are scale invariant solutions which solve an

4690: equation containing an integral. Their exponent must therefore

4691: lie within the ``extended'' ($j$ dependent) window of

4692: locality. Finally one can argue that these zero modes are a part

4693: of the full solution that decays for $r \gg L$, and therefore

4694: solve the original equation as well.

4695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4696: We start from Eqs (\ref{eq:dtC1}) and (\ref{eq:Tab1}). In the Appendix

4697: of (\cite{ara01})  \Eq{eq:Tab1}

4698: was brought to the form:

4699: \begin{equation}

4700: \label{eq:simpleT}

4701:    T^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) = -\frac{1}{2}\PLO

4702:      K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)  - \frac{1}{2}

4703: \frac{12\epsilon

4704: D}{(\epsilon-3)(\epsilon-5)}

4705:       \int\!\! d\B y \, G(\B y) y^{\epsilon-2}

4706:          \partial^2 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r-\B y),

4707: \end{equation}

4708: which is true for every $\epsilon\neq 1$. The $\epsilon=1$ case will not be

4709: treated here explicitly. Nevertheless, in \cite{ara01} it was  argued that

4710: that the results for $\epsilon=1$ can be deduced from the $\epsilon\neq 1$

4711: results by continuity.

4712: 

4713: Looking at \Eq{eq:simpleT}, we note that when $\epsilon=2$, the

4714: integral on the RHS of the above equation trivializes to a local

4715: term $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$. In this limiting case the model can

4716: be fully solved utilizing the same machinery used in the previous

4717: section. The solution can then be used to check the zero modes

4718: computed below for arbitrary values of $\epsilon$.

4719: 

4720: To proceed, we substitute \Eq{eq:simpleT} into \Eq{eq:dtC1},

4721: noting that the projector $\PRO$ leaves the non-trivial integral

4722: in (\ref{eq:simpleT}) invariant since it is divergence-free in

4723: both indices. Setting $\partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r,t) = 0$ in

4724: the stationary case, we arrive to following equation

4725: \begin{eqnarray}

4726: \label{eq:fulleq}

4727: &&0 = -\Big[\PRO\PLO K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu

4728:        C^{\alpha\beta}\Big](\B r) \\&& -\frac{12\epsilon

4729: D}{(\epsilon-3)(\epsilon-5)}

4730:       \int\!\! d\B y\, G(\B y) y^{\epsilon-2} \partial^2

4731:          C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r-\B y) + 2\kappa\partial^2 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B

4732: r)+A^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \ . \nonumber

4733: \end{eqnarray}

4734: As in the toy model, we apply two Laplacians to the above

4735: equation in order to get rid of the integrals of the projection

4736: operators, and obtain

4737: \begin{eqnarray}

4738: \label{eq:full-diff-eq}

4739: &&0 = -\partial^4\Big[\PRO\PLO K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu

4740:        C^{\alpha\beta}\Big](\B r)\\&&-\frac{12\epsilon

4741: D}{(\epsilon-3)(\epsilon-5)}

4742:       \int\!\! d\B y\, G(\B y) y^{\epsilon-2} \partial^6

4743:          C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r-\B y)  + 2\kappa\partial^6 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B

4744: r)+\partial^4

4745: A^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) \ . \nonumber

4746: \end{eqnarray}

4747: Here and in the sequel, the operator $\partial^{2n}$ should be

4748: interpreted as $(\partial^2)^n$. We now seek the homogeneous

4749: stationary solutions of $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ in the inertial

4750: range (zero modes). These satisfy the equations obtained by

4751: neglecting the dissipation, and setting the forcing and time

4752: derivative to zero:

4753: \begin{eqnarray}

4754: \label{eq:zeroCab} && 0 = \partial^4

4755:        K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)

4756:    + \partial^\alpha\partial^\beta\partial_\tau\partial_\sigma

4757:        K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^{\tau\sigma}(\B r)

4758: \\&&-\

4759: \partial^\alpha\partial_\tau\partial^2

4760:        K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^{\tau\beta}(\B r)

4761:        - \partial^\beta\partial_\tau\partial^2

4762:        K^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^{\alpha\tau}(\B r) \nonumber \\

4763: &&\ +\ \frac{12\epsilon D}{(\epsilon-3)(\epsilon-5)}

4764:    \int\!\! d\B y \, G(\B y) y^{\epsilon-2}

4765:      \partial^6 C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r-\B y) \ , \nonumber

4766: \end{eqnarray}

4767: Let us now define the RHS of the above equation as the ``zero

4768: modes operator'' $\OO(\epsilon)$, and write the zero modes equation

4769: compactly as

4770: $$

4771:   0 = \Big[ \OO(\epsilon) C^{\alpha\beta} \Big] (\B r) \ .

4772: $$

4773: The solutions of this problem is obtained as before

4774: by expanding  $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r)$ in a

4775: basis that diagonalizes $\OO(\epsilon)$. Full detail of this

4776: procedure are available in \cite{ara01}.

4777: We turn now to discuss the results.

4778: In Fig. (\ref{fig:toy2})

4779: \begin{figure}

4780: %\epsfxsize=8cm

4781:  \epsfbox{linearP2.eps}

4782: \caption{Leading scaling exponents for the first

4783:  few $j$s. The dashed line indicates the upper bound of the window of

4784: locality}

4785: \label{fig:toy2}

4786: \end{figure}

4787: we show the leading scaling exponents of the Linear Pressure

4788: model for $j=0,2,4,6,8,10$. The results are shown for

4789: From Fig. (\ref{fig:toy2}),

4790:  we see that in the isotropic sector and in the

4791: $j=2$ sector, the leading exponent is $\xi_j^{(2)} = 0$,

4792: corresponding to the trivial $C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) = const$

4793: solution. These zero modes will not contribute to the second

4794: order structure function, which is given by

4795: $$

4796:   S^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) =

4797:      2\Big[C^{\alpha\beta}(\B r) - C^{\alpha\beta}(\B 0)\Big] \ ,

4798: $$

4799: and so we have to consider the zero mode with the consecutive

4800: exponent. In the isotropic sector this exponent is exactly

4801: $\xi_0^{(2)}=2-\epsilon$, as can be proven by passing to Fourier space. This

4802: special solution is a finger-print of the existence of a constant

4803: energy flux in this model.

4804: Returning to the main question of this subsection, we see that no

4805: saturation of the anisotropic exponents occurs since the leading

4806: exponent in every $j>2$ sector is $\xi_j^{(2)} \simeq

4807: j-2$. These exponents are within the window of locality of

4808: \Eq{eq:fulleq} which is given by $-j-3 < \xi_j^{(2)} < j - \epsilon$.

4809: However the next-to-leading exponents (which are the leading ones

4810: in the structure function for $j=0,2$), are already out of

4811: this window, and their relevance has to be discussed. in \cite{ara01} it was

4812: proposed

4813: that the same mechanism that works in the toy model

4814:  also operates here, and that all these higher

4815: exponents can be found in the full solution. To understand this,

4816: let us write a model equation for the correlation function in the

4817: spirit of Eq.(\ref{eq:ex}):

4818: \begin{equation}

4819:   \hat{\mathcal D}C(\B r) + \int d\B y\, K(\B r-\B y) C(\B y) = F(r) \ ,

4820: \label{eq:model}

4821: \end{equation}

4822: with $K$ being some kernel, and $\hat{\mathcal D}$ being some local

4823: differential operator. In view of \Eq{eq:fulleq}, the

4824: differential operator $\hat{\mathcal D}$ should be regarded as the

4825: Kraichnan operator, and the integral term should be taken for all

4826: integral terms in the equation, including integrals due to the

4827: projection operators. These integrals create a window of locality

4828: that we denote by $\lambda_{\mbox{\small low}} < \lambda <

4829: \lambda_{\mbox{\small hi}}$. Any pure scaling solution $C(\B r)

4830: \sim r^\lambda$ with $\lambda$ outside the window of locality

4831: will diverge and hence will not solve the homogeneous part of

4832: \Eq{eq:model}. Nevertheless, we will now demonstrate how this

4833: zero mode can be a part of a full solution without breaking scale

4834: invariance. For this we act with a Laplacian on both sides of

4835: \Eq{eq:model}, in order to get rid of the projection operators

4836: integrals.  Of course, like in the Linear Pressure model, this

4837: will not eliminate all integral terms, and thus we can write the

4838: resultant equation as

4839: \begin{equation}

4840:   \partial^2\hat{\mathcal D}C(\B r)

4841:      + \int d\B y \, K(\B r-\B y)\partial^2 C(\B y) = \partial^2 F(r) \ .

4842: \label{eq:lap-model}

4843: \end{equation}

4844: The main assumption, which was proven analytically in the simple

4845: case of the toy model, is that the above equation has a solution

4846: which is finite for all $r$, and decays for $r \gg L$. Let us now

4847: consider the zero modes of \Eq{eq:lap-model}; their exponents

4848: have to be within the ``shifted'' window of locality

4849: $\lambda_{\mbox{\small low}}+2 < \lambda < \lambda_{\mbox{\small

4850: hi}}+2$. Suppose now that $r^\lambda$ with $\lambda_{\mbox{\small

4851: hi}} < \lambda < \lambda_{\mbox{\small hi}}+2$ is such a

4852: solution, which is therefore part of the full solution of

4853: \Eq{eq:lap-model}. We now claim that this solution also solves

4854: the original equation \Eq{eq:model}, hence allowing the existence

4855: of scaling exponents outside of its window of locality. To see

4856: that, we first notice that since the full solution decays for

4857: $r\gg L$, then all integrals in \Eq{eq:model} converge, and are

4858: therefore well defined. All that is left to show is that the

4859: equation is indeed solved by $C(\B r)$. But this is a trivial

4860: consequence of the uniqueness of the solution for Laplace

4861: equation with zero at infinity boundary conditions. Indeed, if we

4862: denote the integral term in \Eq{eq:model} by

4863: $$  I(\B r) = \int d\B y\, K(\B r-\B y) C(\B y) \ ,$$

4864: then from \Eq{eq:lap-model} we have

4865: $$

4866:   \partial^2 I(\B r) = \partial^2 [F(r) - \hat{\mathcal D}C(\B r)] \ ,

4867: $$

4868: and since both $I(\B r)$ and $F(r) - \hat{\mathcal D}C(\B r)$ decay as

4869: $r\to\infty$, then they must be equal. Of course no breaking of

4870: scale invariance occurs because the equation is satisfied and

4871: $F(r) - \hat{\mathcal

4872:   D}C(\B r)$ is a sum of an inhomogeneous solution and power laws.

4873: 

4874: Returning to the Linear Pressure model, we have shown that not

4875: only the first, leading exponents in every sector are legitimate,

4876: but also the next few exponents. These exponents are inside the

4877: shifted window of locality of the ``Laplaced'' equation

4878: (\ref{eq:zeroCab}), which is given by $-j+1 < \lambda <

4879: j+4-\epsilon$.

4880: At this point, we may ask whether this is also the case for the

4881: other exponents, which are outside this shifted window of

4882: locality. In light of the above discussion, it is clear that all

4883: of them may be part of the full solution, for we can always

4884: differentiate \Eq{eq:fulleq} sufficient number of times, thus

4885: shifting the window of locality to include any of these

4886: exponents. However this procedure is unnecessary once we have

4887: written the prefactor $A(\lambda; j, \epsilon)$ as an infinite sum

4888: of poles in $\lambda$. In that case the equation is defined for

4889: all values of $\lambda$ except for a discrete set of poles,

4890: enabling us to look for exponents as high as we wish.

4891: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4893: \subsubsection{Summary and Conclusions}

4894: \label{sec:summary}

4895: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4896: The main question raised and answered in this subsection is whether the

4897: existence of the pressure terms necessarily leads to a saturation

4898: of the scaling exponents associated with the anisotropic sectors.

4899: Such terms involve integrals over all space, and seem to rule out

4900: the existence of an unbounded spectrum. We have discussed a

4901: mechanism that allows an unbounded spectrum without spoiling the

4902: convergence of the pressure integrals. The mechanism is

4903: demonstrated fully in the context of the simple toy model, and it is

4904: proposed that it also operates in the case of the Linear Pressure

4905: model. The mechanism is based on two fundamental observations.

4906: The first one is that the window of locality widens up linearly

4907: in $j$ due to the angular integration. The second, and more

4908: important, is that a scaling solution with an unbounded spectrum

4909: can exist {\em as a part of a full solution,

4910:   which decays at infinity}. Indeed pure scaling

4911: solutions cannot solve

4912: themselves the zero modes equation if their scaling exponent is

4913: out of the window of locality. However the zero modes are always

4914: part of the full solution which decays to zero once $r \gg L$,

4915: and we have shown that if such a solution solves a differential

4916: version of the full equation, it must also solve the original

4917: equation. Therefore by differentiating the full equation

4918: sufficiently many times, we can always reach a differential

4919: equation with a window of locality as high as we wish.  In that

4920: equation we can find zero mode solutions with arbitrarily high

4921: exponents (notice that in the toy model, it was sufficient to

4922: differentiate once to get rid of all integrals, thus obtaining an

4923: ``infinitely wide'' window of locality). But since these zero

4924: modes are part of a full solution that decays at infinity, then

4925: this solution is also valid for the original equation, hence

4926: showing that in the full solution there can be power laws with

4927: arbitrarily high exponents.

4928: Finally we want to comment about the relevance of these calculations

4929: to Navier-Stokes turbulence. If we substitute blindly $\epsilon=4/3$ in our

4930: results, we predict the exponents 2/3, 1.25226, 2.01922, 4.04843,

4931: 6.06860 and 8.08337 for $j=0,2,4,6,8$ and $10$ respectively. It would

4932: be tempting to propose that similar numbers may be expected for

4933: Navier-Stokes flows with weak anisotropy, and indeed for $j=0$ and $2$

4934: this is not too far from the truth.  We return to this issue after

4935: analyzing the Navier-Stokes case in next section.  The closeness of

4936: the Linear Pressure Model with Navier-Stokes equations has also

4937: been used in \cite{ben01a} to propose a closure for the non-linear

4938: turbulent problem. 

4939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4940: \subsection{A Closure  Calculation of Anisotropic Exponents for

4941: Navier-Stokes Turbulence}

4942: In this subsection we start from the Navier-Stokes equations, and

4943: write down an approximate equation satisfied by the second order

4944: correlation function, in a closure approximation (renormalized

4945: perturbation theory in 1-loop order) \cite{yos01,lvo03}.

4946:  This equation is nonlinear.

4947: For a weakly anisotropic system we follow \cite{lvo03} in linearizing the

4948: equation, to

4949: define a linear operator over the space of the anisotropic

4950: components of the second order correlation function. The solution

4951: is then a combination of forced solutions and ``zero modes" which

4952: are eigenfunctions of eigenvalue zero of the linear operator.

4953: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4954: \subsubsection{Model Equations for Weak Anisotropy in the Closure

4955: Approximation} 

4956: \label{modeleqs}

4957: It is customary to discuss the closure equations in $\B k,t$

4958: representation. The Fourier transform of the velocity field $\B

4959: u(\B r,t)$ is defined by

4960: $$

4961: {\B u}({\B k},t)\equiv \int d{\B r}\, \exp[-i({\B r}\cdot{\B

4962: k}    )] {\B u}({\B x},t).

4963: $$

4964: The Navier-Stokes equations for an incompressible fluid then read

4965: $$

4966: \Big[ {\partial \over \partial t}+\nu k^2\Big]u^\alpha  (\B k,t) =

4967: \frac{i} {2}\Gamma ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\B k)\int {d^3 q d^3 p\over

4968: (2\pi)^3}

4969: \delta (\B k+\B q+\B p){u^*}^\beta (\B q,t)

4970: {u^*}^\gamma  (\B p,t).$$

4971: The interaction amplitude $\Gamma ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\B k)$

4972: is defined by

4973: $ \Gamma ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\B k) =-\left[P^{\alpha\gamma}(\B

4974: k) k^\beta +P^{\alpha\beta}(\B k)k^\gamma \right] \ ,

4975: $ with the transverse projection operator $P^{\alpha\beta}$ defined

4976: as

4977: $ P^{\alpha\beta} \equiv \delta^{\alpha\beta} -\frac{k^\alpha

4978: k^\beta}{k^2}.$

4979: The statistical object that is the concern of this subsection is the

4980: second order (tensor) correlation function $\B F(\B k,t)$,

4981: $$

4982: (2\pi)^3 \FT^{\alpha\beta}(\B k,t)\delta (\B k-\B q) \equiv \langle

4983: u^\alpha (\B k,t){u^*}^\beta(\B q,t)\rangle \ .$$ In stationary conditions

4984: this object is time independent. Our aim

4985: is to find its $k$-dependence, especially in the anisotropic

4986: sectors.

4987: 

4988: It is well known that there is no close-form theory for the

4989: second order simultaneous correlation function. We therefore need

4990: to resort to standard closure approximations that lead to model

4991: equations.  Such a closure leads to

4992: approximate equations of motion of the form

4993: \begin{equation}

4994: \frac{\partial \FT^{\alpha\beta}(\B k,t)}{2\partial t} =

4995: I^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,t)-\nu k^2 \FT^{\alpha\beta}(\B k,t)  \ ,

4996: \end{equation}

4997: where

4998: \begin{equation}

4999: I^{\alpha\beta}(\B k) = \int\frac {d^3q d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \delta(\B

5000: k+\B p+\B q) \Phi^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,\B q,\B p) \ .

5001: \label{Integral}

5002: \end{equation}

5003: In this equation $

5004: \Phi^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)

5005: =\frac{1}{2}[\Psi^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)

5006: +\Psi^{\beta\alpha} (\B k,\B q,\B p) ]$,

5007: and

5008: \begin{eqnarray}

5009: &&\Psi^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,\B q,\B p) = \Theta(\B k,\B q,\B p)

5010: \Gamma^{\alpha\gamma\delta}(\B k)[\Gamma^{\delta\beta'\gamma'}(\B q)

5011:  \FT^{\gamma\gamma'}(\B p) ^{\beta'\beta}(\B k) +\nonumber\\&&

5012: \Gamma^{\gamma\beta'\delta'}(\B p)

5013:  \FT^{\delta\delta'}(\B q) A^{\beta'\beta}(\B k)

5014: + \Gamma^{\beta\delta'\gamma'}(\B k)

5015:  \FT^{\delta\delta'}(\B q) A^{\gamma\gamma'}(\B p)] \ . \label{Phi}

5016: \end{eqnarray}

5017: In stationary conditions and for $k$ in the inertial range we need

5018: to solve the integral equation $I^{\alpha\beta}(\B k) = 0$.

5019: 

5020: The process leading to these equations is long; one starts with

5021: the Dyson-Wyld perturbation theory, and truncates (without

5022: justification) at the first loop order. In addition one asserts

5023: that the time dependence of the response function and the

5024: correlation functions are the same. Finally one assumes that the

5025: time correlation functions decay in time in a prescribed manner.

5026: This is the origin of the ``triad interaction time" $\Theta(\Bk,\B q,\B p)$.

5027: If one assumes that all the correlation functions

5028: involved decay exponentially (i.e. like $\exp(-\gamma_{\B k}|t|)$,

5029: then

5030: \begin{equation}

5031: \Theta(\B k,\B q,\B p) =\frac{1}{\gamma_{\B k}+\gamma_{\B

5032: q}+\gamma_{\B p}} \ . \label{expdecay}

5033: \end{equation}

5034: For Gaussian decay, i.e. like $\exp[-(\gamma_{\B k} t)^2/2]$,

5035: \begin{equation}

5036: \Theta(\B k,\B q,\B p) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma^2_{\B

5037: k}+\gamma^2_{\B q}+\gamma^2_{\B p}}} \ . \label{gaussdecay}

5038: \end{equation}

5039: All these approximations are uncontrolled. Nevertheless this type

5040: of closure is known to give roughly correct estimates of scaling

5041: exponents and even of coefficients in the isotropic sector.

5042: 

5043: Eq. (\ref{Integral}) poses a nonlinear integral equation which is

5044: closed once  $\gamma_{\B k}$ is modeled. One may use the estimate

5045: $\gamma_{\B k}\sim k U_k$ where $U_k$ is the typical velocity

5046: amplitude on the inverse scale of $k$, which is evaluated as

5047: $U^2_k\sim k^3 \FT^{\alpha\alpha}(\B k)$.

5048: \begin{equation}

5049: \gamma_{\B k} =  C_\gamma k^{5/2}\sqrt {\FT^{\alpha\alpha}(\B k)} \

5050: . \label{gamma}

5051: \end{equation}

5052: In isotropic turbulence Eqs. (\ref{Integral}) and (\ref{gamma})

5053: have an exact solution with K41 scaling exponents,

5054: \be

5055: \FT^{\alpha\beta}_0(\B k) = P^{\alpha\beta}(\B k) F(k), \quad

5056: F(k) = C\epsilon^{2/3} k^{-11/3}, \quad \gamma_k= \tilde

5057: C_\gamma \epsilon^{1/3} k^{2/3}. \label{j0}

5058: \ee

5059: Note that the scaling exponents in $\B k$-representation, denoted as $\tilde

5060: \zeta$, have a

5061: $d$-dependent difference from their numerical value in $\B r$-

5062: representation. In 3-dimensions $\tilde \zeta^{(2)}=\zeta^{(2)}+3$, and

5063: the exponent 2/3 turns to 11/3 in Eq.(\ref{j0}).

5064: For weak anisotropic turbulence Eq.(\ref{Integral}) will pose a

5065: {\em linear} problem for the anisotropic components which depends

5066: on this isotropic solution.

5067: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5068: \subsubsection{Closure with Weak Anisotropy}

5069: In weakly anisotropic turbulence one has to  consider a small anisotropic

5070: correction $f^{\alpha\beta} (\B k)$ to the fundamental isotropic

5071: background

5072: $$

5073: \FT^{\alpha\beta}(\B k)=\FT^{\alpha\beta}_0(\B k) + f^{\alpha\beta}

5074: (\B k).$$

5075: The first term vanishes with the solution (\ref{j0}). Linearizing

5076: the  integral equation with respect to the anisotropic correction

5077: leads to:

5078: \begin{eqnarray}

5079: &&I^{\alpha\beta}(\B k)\!=\!\! \int\!\!\frac {d^3q d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}

5080: \delta(\B k+\B p+\B q)

5081: [S^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} (\B k,\B q,\B p) f^{\gamma\delta}(\B k)

5082: +2T^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)

5083: f^{\gamma\delta}(\B q)]=0 \ , \nonumber\\

5084: &&S^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)\equiv

5085: \frac{\delta\Phi^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)}{\delta

5086: \FT^{\gamma\delta}(\B k)}\ ,\quad

5087: T^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)\equiv

5088: \frac{\delta\Phi^{\alpha\beta} (\B k,\B q,\B p)}{\delta

5089: \FT^{\gamma\delta}(\B q)} \ . \label{allj}

5090: \end{eqnarray}

5091: We reiterate that the functional derivatives in Eq.(\ref{allj})

5092: are calculated in the isotropic ensemble. In computing these

5093: derivatives we should account also for the implicit dependence

5094: of  $\Theta(\B k,\B q,\B p)$ on the correlation function through

5095: Eq. (\ref{gamma}). We can rewrite Eq. (\ref{allj}) in a way that

5096: brings out explicitly the linear integral operator $\hat L$,

5097: \begin{equation}

5098: \hat L |\B f\rangle\equiv \int\!\!\frac {d^3q}{(2\pi)^3} {\mathcal

5099: L}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(\B k,\B q) f^{\gamma\delta}(\B q) = 0

5100: \ , \label{opereq}

5101: \end{equation}

5102: where the kernel of the operator is

5103: \begin{equation}

5104: {\mathcal L}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(\B k,\B q)\equiv \delta(\B

5105: k-\B q)\int\frac {d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}S^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} (\B

5106: k,\B p,-\B k-\B p) +2T^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}

5107: (\B k,\B q,-\B k-\B q) \ . \label{oper}

5108: \end{equation}

5109: 

5110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5111: \subsubsection{Symmetry Properties of the Linear Operator}

5112: The first observation to make is that the linear operator is

5113: invariant under all rotations. Accordingly we can block

5114: diagonalize it by expanding the anisotropic perturbation in the

5115: irreducible representation of the SO(3) symmetry group. These

5116: have principal indices $j$ with an integer $j$ going from 0

5117: to $\infty$. The zeroth component is the isotropic sector.

5118: Correspondingly the  integral equation takes the form

5119: \begin{equation}

5120: I^{\alpha\beta}(\B k) = I^{\alpha\beta}_0(\B

5121: k)+\sum_{j=1}^\infty I^{\alpha\beta}_j(\B k) =0 \ .

5122: \label{intj}

5123: \end{equation}

5124: The block diagonalization implies that each $j$-block provides

5125: an independent set of equations (for every value of $\B k$):

5126: $

5127: I^{\alpha\beta}_j(\B k) =0$.

5128: The first term of (\ref{intj}) vanishes with the solution

5129: (\ref{j0}). For all higher values of $j$ we need to solve the

5130: corresponding equation

5131: \begin{equation}

5132: \hat L |\,\B f_j\rangle = 0 \ . \label{operell}

5133: \end{equation}

5134: We can block diagonalize further by exploiting additional

5135: symmetries of the linear operator. In all  discussion we

5136: assume that the  turbulent flow has zero helicity. Correspondingly

5137: all the correlation functions are invariant under the inversion

5138: of $\B k$.

5139: Consequently there are no odd $j$ components, and we can write

5140: $$

5141: f^{\alpha\beta} (\B k)= \sum_{j=2,4,...}^\infty

5142: f^{\alpha\beta}_j (\B k).$$

5143: We also note that in general $\B u(-\B k)=\B u^*(\B k)$.

5144: Accordingly, the correlation functions are real. From this fact

5145: and the definition it follows that the correlation functions are

5146: symmetric to index permutation,

5147: $ \FT^{\alpha\beta}_0(\B k) =\FT^{\beta\alpha}_0(\B k)$ and

5148: $f^{\alpha\beta}_j (\B k)=f^{\beta\alpha}_j (\B k)$.

5149: As a result the  linear operator is invariant to permuting the

5150: first ($\alpha,\beta$) and separately the second

5151: ($\gamma,\delta$) pairs of indices. In addition, the operator is

5152: symmetric to $\B k\to -\B k$ together with $\B q\to -\B q$. This

5153: follows from the inversion symmetry  and from the appearance

5154: of products of two interaction amplitudes (which are

5155: antisymmetric under the inversion of all wave-vectors by

5156: themselves).

5157: Finally, the  kernel is a homogeneous function of the wavevectors,

5158: meaning that in every block we can expand in terms of basis

5159: functions that have a definite scaling behavior, being

5160: proportional to $k^{-\tilde\zeta}$.

5161: \subsubsection{SO(3) Decomposition} \label{SO3} As a result of the

5162: symmetry properties the operator $\hat L$ is block diagonalized

5163: by tensors that have the following properties:

5164: \begin{itemize}

5165: \item They belong to a definite sector $(j, m)$ of the SO($3$) group.

5166: \item They have a definite scaling behavior.

5167: \item They are either symmetric or antisymmetric under permutations of

5168:   indices.

5169: \item They are either even or odd in $\B k$.

5170: \end{itemize}

5171: We have already explicitly presented the tensors involved

5172:  for the case of passive vector advection. Here

5173: we only quote the final results translated into $\B k$ space.

5174: In every sector $(j, m)$ of

5175: the rotation group with $j > 1$, one can find 9 independent

5176: tensors $X^{\alpha\beta}(\B k)$ that scale like

5177: $k^{-x}$. They are given by $k^{-x} \tilde

5178: B_{j,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k})$, where the index $j$ runs

5179: from 1 to 9, enumerating the different spherical tensors. The

5180: unit vector $\hat{\B k}\equiv \B k/k$. These nine tensors can be

5181: further subdivided into four subsets exactly like the real-space

5182: decomposition of

5183: Sect.~\ref{alternative}:

5184: \begin{itemize}

5185: \item \textbf{Subset I} of 4 symmetric tensors with $(-)^j$ parity.

5186: \item \textbf{Subset II} of 2 symmetric tensors with $(-)^{j+1}$ parity.

5187: \item \textbf{Subset III} of 2 antisymmetric tensors with $(-)^{j+1}$

5188: parity.

5189: \item \textbf{Subset IV} of 1 antisymmetric tensor with $(-)^j$ parity.

5190: \end{itemize}

5191: Due to the diagonalization of $\hat L$ by these subsets, the

5192: equation for the zero modes foliates, and we can compute the zero

5193: modes in each subset separately. In this subsection, we choose to

5194: focus on subset I, which has the richest structure. The four

5195: tensors in this subset are given  here by

5196: \begin{eqnarray}

5197:   \tilde B_{1,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) &=&

5198:         k^{-j-2}k^\alpha k^\beta \phi_{j m}(\B k) \nonumber , \\

5199:  \tilde B_{2,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) &=&

5200:         k^{-j}[k^\alpha \partial^\beta + k^\beta\partial^\alpha]

5201:           \phi_{j m}(\B k) \ , \nonumber \\

5202:  \tilde B_{3,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) &=&

5203:         k^{-j}\delta^{\alpha\beta} \phi_{j m}(\B k) \ , \nonumber \\

5204:  \tilde B_{4,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) &=&

5205:         k^{-j+2}\partial^\alpha \partial^\beta \phi_{j m}(\B k) \ ,

5206:        \label{basis}

5207: \end{eqnarray}

5208: where $\phi_{j m}(\B k)$ are the standard spherical harmonics.

5209: 

5210: The last property to employ is the incompressibility of the target

5211: function $f^{\alpha\beta} (\B k)$. Examining the basis

5212: (\ref{basis}) we note that we can find two linear combinations

5213: that are transverse to $\B k$ and two linear combinations that are

5214: longitudinal in $\B k$. We need only the former, which have the

5215: form

5216: \begin{eqnarray}

5217: \label{basis1}

5218:  B_{1,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) &=&

5219:         k^{-j}P^{\alpha\beta}(\B k) \phi_{j m}(\B k) ,

5220: \\

5221:  B_{2,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) &=&

5222:         k^{-j}[k^2 \partial^\alpha \partial^\beta -(j-1)( k^\beta

5223: \partial^\alpha

5224: +k^\alpha\partial^\beta) +j(j-1)

5225: \delta^{\alpha\beta} ]

5226:           \phi_{j m}(\B k) \ .\nonumber

5227: \end{eqnarray}

5228: Using this basis we can now expand the  target function as

5229: \begin{equation}

5230: \label{expand} f^{\alpha\beta}_j (\B k) = k^{-\tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}}

5231:    \Big[ c_1 B_{1,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k}) +

5232:          c_2 B_{2,j m}^{\alpha\beta}(\hat{\B k})

5233:     \Big] \ .

5234: \end{equation}

5235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5236: \subsubsection{Calculation of the Scaling Exponents}

5237: \label{calculation}

5238: Substituting Eq.(\ref{expand}) into Eq.(\ref{operell}) we find

5239: \begin{equation}

5240: \hat L q^{-\tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}}|\B B_{1,j m}\rangle c_1+\hat L

5241: q^{-\tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}}|\B B_{2,j m}\rangle c_2 =0 \ . \label{LonB}

5242: \end{equation}

5243: Projecting this equation on  the two function of the basis

5244: (\ref{basis1}) we obtain for the  matrix $L_{i,l}(j, \tilde\zeta_j^{(2)})

5245: \equiv \langle \B B_{i,j m}|\hat

5246: L q^{-\tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}}|

5247: \B B_{l,j m}\rangle$ the form:

5248: \begin{equation}

5249: \label{mateq}

5250: L_{i,l}(j, \tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}) = \int\!\!\frac {d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\,d\hat {\B

5251: k}\,B^{\alpha\beta}_{i,j m}(\hat{\B k}) {\mathcal

5252: L}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(\B k,\B

5253: q)q^{-\tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}}B^{\gamma\delta}_{l,j m}(\hat{\B q}).

5254: \ee

5255: Here we have full integration with respect to $\B q$, but only

5256: angular integration with respect to $\B k$. Thus the matrix

5257: depends on $k$ as a power, but we are not interested in this

5258: dependence since we demand the solvability condition

5259: \begin{equation}

5260: \det L_{i,l}(j, \tilde\zeta_j^{(2)}) = 0 \ . \label{solvability}

5261: \end{equation}

5262: It is important to stress that in spite of the explicit $m$

5263: dependence of the basis functions, the matrix obtained in this way

5264: has no $m$ dependence. In the calculation below we can therefore

5265: put, without loss of generality, $m=0$. This is like having

5266: cylindrical symmetry with a symmetry axis in the direction of the

5267: unit vector $\hat{\B  n}$. In this case we can write the matrix

5268: $\B  B_{i, j}(\hat{\B  k})$ (in the vector space $\alpha,\,

5269: \beta= x,\,y,\,z$) as

5270: \begin{equation}\label{B-as-operator}

5271: B^{\alpha\beta}_{i, j}(\hat{\B  k}) = k^{-j} \hat {\C

5272: B}^{\alpha\beta}_{i, j,\B  k} (k^{j} P_{j} (\hat{\B  k}

5273: \cdot \hat{\B  n}))\,,

5274: \end{equation}

5275: where $\hat {\C  B}^{\alpha\beta}_{i, j,\B  k}$ are matrix

5276: operators, acting on wave vector $\B  k$:

5277: \begin{eqnarray}\label{def-B-operator}

5278: \hat {\C  B}^{\alpha\beta}_{1, j,\B  k} & \equiv  &

5279: \delta^{\alpha\beta} - \frac{k^\alpha k^\beta}{k^2}, \\  \nonumber

5280: \hat {\C  B}^{\alpha\beta}_{2, j,\B  k} & \equiv  & \frac{

5281: k^2\, \partial^2}{ \partial k^\alpha \partial k^\beta} - (j -

5282: 1) \Big ( \frac{   k^\alpha \partial}{\partial k^\beta}

5283:  +\frac{   k^\beta \partial}{\partial k^\alpha }

5284: - j \, \delta^{\alpha\beta}\Big ) \, ,

5285: \end{eqnarray}

5286: and $P_j(x)$ denote $j$-th order Legendre polynomials.

5287: The technical details of the calculations

5288: were presented in \cite{lvo03}. Here we

5289: present and discuss the results.

5290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5291: \subsubsection{Results and Concluding Remarks}

5292: \label{conclusions}

5293: The determinants $\det[L_{i,l}(j,\tilde\zeta^{(2)}_j]$ were computed as

5294: functions of the scaling exponents $\tilde \zeta^{(2)}_j$ in every

5295: $j$-sector

5296: separately, and the scaling exponent was determined from the zero

5297: crossing. The procedure is exemplified in Fig. \ref{Fig.1v} for

5298: the isotropic sector $j=0$. We expect for this sector

5299: $\tilde\zeta^{(2)}_0=11/3$, in accordance with $\zeta_0^{(2)}=2/3$. Indeed,

5300: for

5301: both decay models, i.e the exponential decay (\ref{expdecay}),

5302: shown in dark line, and the Gaussian decay (\ref{gaussdecay})

5303: shown in light line, the zero crossing occurs at the same point,

5304: which in the inset can be read as 3.6667.

5305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5306: \begin{figure}

5307: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{j0.a.ps}

5308: \caption{determinant and zero crossing for the sector $j=0$. The scaling

5309: exponent

5310: computed from the zero crossing is $\zeta^{(2)}_0\approx

5311: 0.667$.} \label{Fig.1v}

5312: \end{figure}

5313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

5314: For the higher $j$-sectors the agreement between the

5315: exponential and Gaussian models is not as perfect, indicating

5316: that the  procedure is not exact. In Fig. \ref{Fig.2} we present

5317: the determinant and zero crossings for $j=2$.

5318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5319: \begin{figure}

5320: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{j2.a.ps}

5321: \caption{determinant and zero crossing for the sector $j=2$. The scaling

5322: exponent

5323: computed from the zero crossing is $\zeta^{(2)}_2\approx

5324: 1.36-1.37$.} \label{Fig.2}

5325: \end{figure} From the inset we can read the exponents

5326: $\tilde\zeta_2^{(2)}=4.351$ and

5327: 4.366 for the exponential and Gaussian models respectively. This

5328: is in correspondence with $\zeta_2^{(2)}=1.351$ and $1.366$

5329: respectively. These numbers are in excellent correspondence with

5330: the experimental measurements reported in

5331: \cite{ara98,kur00a}, cf. the next

5332: Section.

5333: The results for $j=4$ are presented in Fig. \ref{Fig.3}. Here

5334: the zero crossing, as seen in the inset, yields very close

5335: results for $\tilde\zeta_4^{(2)}$ between the exponential and Gaussian decay

5336: models, i.e. $\tilde\zeta_4^{(2)}\approx 4.99$. Note that this result is

5337: very close to the boundary of locality as discussed in \cite{lvo03}.

5338: Nevertheless the zero crossing is still easily

5339: resolved by the numerics, with the prediction that

5340: $\zeta_4^{(2)}\approx 1.99$. The simulation estimate of this number

5341: in \cite{bif01a} was $1.7\pm 0.1$. We note that while the  result

5342: $\zeta_4^{(2)}\approx 1.99$ is not within the error bars of the

5343: simulational estimate, it is very possible that the closeness of

5344: the exponent to the boundary of the window of locality gives rise

5345: to very slow convergence to asymptotic scaling. We therefore have

5346: to reserve judgment about the agreement with simulations until

5347: larger scaling ranges were available.

5348: 

5349: Similar results are obtained for $j=6$, see Fig. \ref{Fig.4}.

5350: Also this case exhibits zero crossing close to the boundary of

5351: locality, with $\tilde\zeta_6^{(2)}\approx 6.98$. Again we find close

5352: correspondence between the exponential and Gaussian models. In

5353: terms of $\zeta^{(2)}$ this means $\zeta_6^{(2)}\approx 3.98$. This

5354: number appears higher than the simulational result from

5355: \cite{bif01a}, which estimated $\zeta_6^{(2)}\approx 3.3\pm 0.3$. We

5356: note however that for $j=6$ the log-log plots measured in DNS

5357:  \cite{bif01a}

5358: possess a short scaling range.

5359: \begin{center}

5360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5361: \begin{figure}

5362: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{j4.a.ps}

5363: \caption{determinant and zero crossing for the sector $j=4$. The scaling

5364: exponent

5365: computed from the zero crossing is $\zeta^{(2)}_4\approx 1.99$.}

5366: \label{Fig.3}

5367: \end{figure}

5368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

5369: \end{center}

5370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5371: \begin{figure}

5372: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{j6.a.ps}

5373: \caption{determinant and zero crossing for the sector $j=6$. The scaling

5374: exponent

5375: computed from the zero crossing is $\zeta^{(2)}_6\approx 3.98$.}

5376: \label{Fig.4}

5377: \end{figure}

5378: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

5379: Interestingly enough, the set of exponents $\zeta_j^{(2)}$=2/3,

5380: 1.36, 1.99 and 3.98 for $j=$0, 2, 4 and 6 respectively are in

5381: close agreement with the numbers obtained for the linear pressure

5382: model, $\xi_j^{(2)}$=2/3, 1.25226, 2.01922, 4.04843, for

5383: $j=0,2,4$ and 6 respectively. We reiterate at this point that

5384: the latter set is exact for the linear pressure model, whereas

5385: the former set is obtained within the closure approximation. In fact, the

5386: close correspondence

5387: is not so surprising since he linearization of Navier-Stokes equations for

5388: small anisotropy

5389: results in a linear operator which is very close to the one that exists

5390: naturally in the Linear

5391: Pressure Model.

5392: Numerical results \cite{bif01a,bif02,bif03a} obtained at moderate Re

5393: and  with strong anisotropies

5394: show a small disagreement with the numbers calculated  in the closure

5395: approximation.

5396: We do not expect a much more precise

5397: theoretical evaluation of these exponents before numerical and experimental

5398: data at higher Re are obtained and the

5399: intermittency problem in the isotropic sector is fully settled.

5400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5402: \section{Analysis of Experimental Data}

5403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5405: \label{chap:experiment}

5406: The major difficulty in applying the SO(3) decomposition to

5407: experimental data lies in the fact that one never has the whole

5408: field $\B u(\B x)$. We thus cannot project the statistical objects

5409: onto chosen basis functions $\B B_{qj m}$ and simply integrate out

5410: all other contributions. Rather, we need to extract the wanted information

5411: laboriously by fitting  partially resolved data,

5412: or to measure quantities that do not have projections on the isotropic

5413: sector, to see right away the anisotropic contributions. We begin with the

5414: first

5415: approach.

5416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5417: \subsection{Anisotropic Contribution to the Statistics of the

5418: Atmospheric Boundary Layer}

5419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5420: \label{atmospheric}

5421: The atmospheric boundary layer offers a natural laboratory of

5422: turbulence that is unique in offering extremely high Re

5423: number. Students of turbulence interested in the scaling

5424: properties that are expected to be universal in the limit $Re\to

5425: \infty$ are thus attracted to atmospheric measurements. On the

5426: other hand the boundary layer suffers from strong inhomogeneity

5427: (explicit dependence of the mean velocity on the height) which

5428: leads to strong anisotropies such that the vertical and the

5429: horizontal directions are quite distinguishable. In addition, one

5430: may expect the boundary layer to exhibit large-scale quasi

5431: 2-dimensional eddys whose typical decay times and statistics may

5432: differ significantly from the generic 3-dimensional case. The aim

5433: of this section is to review systematic methods of data analysis

5434: that attempt to resolve such difficulties, leading to a useful

5435: extraction of the universal, 3-dimensional aspects of turbulence.

5436: 

5437: Obviously, to isolate tensorial components belonging to other than

5438: isotropic sectors one needs to collect data from more than one vector

5439: component of the velocity field.  Having {\em two} probes is actually

5440: sufficient to read surprisingly rich information about anisotropic

5441: turbulence. In the experiments discussed in this subsection two types

5442: of geometry were employed, one consisting of two probes at the same

5443: height above the ground and the other with the two probes separated

5444: vertically. In both cases the inter-probe separation is orthogonal to

5445: the mean wind. 

5446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5447: \subsubsection{Experiments, Data Sets and the Extraction of

5448: Structure Functions}

5449: \label{expsetup}

5450: The results presented in this subsection are based on two experimental

5451: setups \cite{ara98,kur00,kur00a}, which are denoted

5452: throughout as {\rm I} and {\rm II}

5453: respectively. In both setups the data were acquired over the salt

5454: flats in Utah with a long fetch. In set {\rm I} the data were

5455: acquired simultaneously from two single hot wire probes at a

5456: height of 6 m above the ground, with a horizontal separation of

5457: 55 cm, nominally orthogonal to the mean wind. The Taylor

5458: microscale Reynolds number was about 10,000. Set {\rm II} was

5459: acquired from an array of three cross-wires, arranged {\em above}

5460: each other at heights 11 cm, 27 cm and 54 cm respectively. The

5461: Taylor microscale Reynolds numbers in this set were 900, 1400 and

5462: 2100 respectively.

5463: Table~1 lists a few relevant facts about the data records

5464: analyzed here. The various symbols have the following meanings:

5465: $\overline U$ = local mean velocity, $u^{\prime}$ =

5466: root-mean-square velocity, $\eb$ = energy

5467: dissipation rate obtained by the assumption of local isotropy and

5468: Taylor's hypothesis, $\eta$ and $\lambda$ are the Kolmogorov and

5469: Taylor length scales, respectively, the microscale Reynolds number

5470: $R_{\lambda} \equiv u^{\prime} \lambda/\nu$, and $f_s$ is the

5471: sampling frequency.

5472: 

5473: For set I it is important to  test whether the separation between the two

5474: probes is indeed orthogonal to the mean wind. (We do not need to

5475: worry about this point in set {\rm II}, since the probes are

5476: above each other). To do so one computes the cross-correlation

5477: function $\langle u_1(t+\tau)u_2(t)\rangle$. Here, $u_1$ and

5478: $u_2$ refer to velocity fluctuations in the direction of the mean

5479: wind, for probes 1 and 2 respectively. If the separation were

5480: precisely orthogonal to the mean wind, this quantity should be

5481: maximum for $\tau=0$. Instead, for set I, it was  found that the maximum

5482: shifted slightly to $\tau=0.022$ s, implying that the separation

5483: was not precisely orthogonal to the mean wind. To correct for

5484: this effect, the data from the second probe were time-shifted by

5485: 0.022 s. This amounts to a change in the actual value of the

5486: orthogonal distance. The  effective distance is

5487: $\Delta \approx 54$ cm (instead of the 55 cm that was set

5488: physically).

5489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5490: \begin{table}

5491: \begin{tabular} {|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

5492: \hline

5493: Height&$\overline U$ & $u^\prime$ &$10^2 \langle \eb

5494: \rangle $,& $\eta$ & $\lambda$ & $R_{\lambda}$ & $f_s,$ per & \#

5495: of \\meters& ms$^{-1}$ & ms $^{-1}$

5496: & m $^2$ s$^{-3}$ & mm & cm & & channel, Hz & samples\\

5497: \hline 6 & 4.1 & 1.08 & $1.1$ & 0.75 & 15 & 10,500 & 10,000 & $4 \times

5498: 10^7$\\

5499: \hline\hline 0.11 & 2.7

5500: & 0.47 & $6.6 $ & 0.47 & 2.8 & 900 & 5,000 & $ 8 \times 10^6$\\

5501: 0.27 &3.1 & 0.48 & 2.8& 0.6 & 4.4 & 1400& 5,000 &$8 \times 10^6$\\

5502: 0.54 &3.51 &0.5& 1.5& 0.7& 6.2&2100& 5,000& $8 \times

5503: 10^6$\\

5504: \hline

5505: \end{tabular}

5506: \caption{Data sets I (first line) and II (second-fourth lines).}

5507: \end{table}

5508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5509: The  coordinates were chosen such that the mean wind direction is along

5510: the 3-axis, the vertical is  along the 1-axis and the third

5511: direction orthogonal to these is the 2-axis. We denote these

5512: directions by the three unit vectors $\hat {\B n}$, $\hat {\B m}$,

5513: and $\hat {\B p}$ respectively. The raw data available from set I

5514: is $u^{(3)}(t)$ measured at the positions of the two probes. In

5515: set II each probe reads a linear combination of $u^{(3)}(t)$ and

5516: $u^{(1)}(t)$ from which each component is extractable. From this

5517: raw data we would like to compute the scale-dependent structure

5518: functions, using the Taylor hypothesis to surrogate space for

5519: time. This needs a careful discussion.

5520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5521: \subsubsection{Theoretical constructs: the Taylor Hypothesis, Inner

5522: and Outer Scales} \label{Taylor}

5523: Decades of research on the statistical aspects of thermodynamic

5524: turbulence are based on the Taylor Hypothesis \cite{tay38}, which

5525: asserts that the fluctuating velocity field measured by a given

5526: probe as a function of time, $\B u(t)$ is the same as the velocity

5527: $\B u(r/\overline{U})$ where $\overline{U}$ is the mean velocity

5528: and $r$ is the distance to a position ``upstream'' where the

5529: velocity is measured at $t=0$. The natural limitation on the

5530: Taylor hypothesis is provided by the typical decay time of

5531: fluctuations of scale $r$. Within a K41 scaling theory this time

5532: scale is the turn-over time $r/\sqrt{S(r)}$ where $S(r)\equiv

5533: S^{\alpha\alpha}(r)$. With this estimate the Taylor Hypothesis is

5534: expected to be valid when $\sqrt{S(r)}/\overline{U} \to 0$. Since

5535: $S(r)\to 0$ when $r\to 0$, the Taylor hypothesis becomes exact in

5536: this limit. We will use this to calibrate the units when we

5537: employ two different probes and read a distance from a

5538: combination of space and time intervals.

5539: 

5540: The Taylor hypothesis has also been employed when the mean

5541: velocity vanishes, and instead of $\overline{U}$ one uses the

5542: root-mean-square $u'$. Ref.\cite{lpp99} has presented a

5543: detailed analysis of the consequences of the Taylor hypothesis on

5544: the basis of an exactly soluble model. In particular

5545:  ways were proposed there  to minimize the systematic errors introduced by

5546: the

5547: use of the Taylor hypothesis. In light of that analysis we will

5548: use here an ``effective" wind $U_{eff}$ which for surrogating the

5549: time data of a single probe is made of a combination of the mean

5550: wind $\overline{U}$ and the root-mean-square $u'$,

5551: \begin{equation} U_{eff}

5552: \equiv \sqrt{\overline{U}^2+(\tilde b u')^2} \ , \label{defUeff}

5553: \end{equation}

5554: where $\tilde b$ is a dimensionless parameter. Evidently, when we employ

5555: the Taylor hypothesis in log-log plots of structure functions

5556: using time series measured in a {\em single} probe, the value of

5557: the parameter $\tilde b$ is irrelevant, changing just the (arbitrary)

5558: units of length (i.e the arbitrary intercept). When we used data

5559: collected from two probes, we mix read distance and surrogated

5560: distance, and the parameter $\tilde b$ becomes a unit fixer. The

5561: numerical value of this  parameter is found in \cite{lpp99} by

5562: the requirement that the surrogated and directly measured

5563: structure functions coincide in the limit $r\to 0$. When we do

5564: not have the necessary data we will use values of $\tilde b$ suggested

5565: by the exactly soluble model treated in \cite{lpp99}. The choice

5566: of these values can be justified a posteriori by the quality of the

5567: fit of to the predicted scaling functions.

5568: 

5569: When we have two probes placed at different heights the mean

5570: velocity and $u'$ as measured by each probe do not coincide. In

5571: applying the Taylor hypothesis one needs to decide which value of

5572: $U_{eff}$ is most appropriate. This question has been addressed

5573: in detail in ref.\cite{lpp99}

5574:  with the final conclusion that the

5575: choice depends on the velocity profile between the probe. In the

5576: case of {\em linear} shear the answer is the precise average

5577: between the two probes, \begin{equation} U_{eff} \equiv

5578: \sqrt{{\overline{U_1}^2+\overline{U_2}\over 2}^2+\tilde b{{u_1'}^2

5579: +{u_1'}^2\over2}} \ , \label{defUeff2}

5580: \end{equation}

5581: where the subscripts 1,2 refer to the two probes respectively.

5582: In all the subsequent expressions we will therefore denote separations by

5583: $r$, and invariably this will mean Taylor-surrogated time differences. The

5584: effective velocity will be (\ref{defUeff}) or (\ref{defUeff2}) depending

5585: on having probes at the same height or at different heights. The value of

5586: $\tilde b$ will be $\tilde b=3$ following ref.\cite{lpp99}. It can be shown

5587:  that the

5588: computed scaling exponents are not sensitive to the changing $b$.

5589: (They change by a couple of percents upon changing $b$ by 30\%.)

5590: In seeking scaling behavior one needs to find the inner and outer

5591: scales. Below the inner scale all structure functions have an

5592: analytic dependence on the separation, $S(r)\sim r^2$, and above

5593: the outer scale the structure functions should tend to a constant

5594: value. We look at the longitudinal structure functions

5595: $$

5596: S^{33}(r) = \langle(u^3(x + r) - u^3(x))^2\rangle $$

5597: computed from a single probe in set I and from the probe at

5598: $0.54$m in set II , see Fig.\ref{susanpaper.scrange_long.eps}.

5599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5600: \begin{figure}

5601: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{susanpaper.scrange_long.eps}

5602: \caption{Raw log-log plot of the longitudinal component of the

5603: 2nd order structure function.} \label{susanpaper.scrange_long.eps}

5604: \end{figure}

5605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5606: We simultaneously consider the transverse structure function

5607: $$

5608: S^{11}(r) = \langle(u^1(x + r) - u^1(x))^2\rangle $$

5609: computed from the probe at $0.54$m in set II, see Fig.

5610: \ref{susanpaper.scrange_trans.eps}.

5611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5612: \begin{figure}

5613: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{susanpaper.scrange_trans.eps}

5614: \caption{Raw log-log plot of the transverse component of the 2nd

5615: order structure function.} \label{susanpaper.scrange_trans.eps}

5616: \end{figure}

5617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5618: The spatial scales are computed using the local mean wind in both

5619: cases since  the scaling exponent for the

5620: single-probe structure function are not expected

5621: to be affected by the choice of

5622: convection velocity. This choice does determine the value of $r$

5623: corresponding to a particular time scale however. One may expect

5624: that any correction to the numerical value of $r$ is small for a

5625: different choice of convection velocity, and not crucial for the

5626: qualitative statements that follow. In

5627: Fig.~\ref{susanpaper.scrange_long.eps} we clearly see the $r^2$

5628: behavior characterizing the transition from the dissipative to

5629: the inertial range. As is usual, this behavior persists about a

5630: half-decade above the ``nominal" Kolmogorov length scale $\eta$.

5631: There is a region of cross-over and then the isotropic scaling

5632: $\sim r^{0.68}$ expected for small scales in the inertial range

5633: begins. We thus have no difficulty at all in identifying the

5634: inner scale, it is simply revealed as a natural crossover length

5635: in this highly resolved data.

5636: \noindent

5637: We understand by now that we cannot expect to be

5638: able to fit with this single exponent for larger scales and must

5639: include scaling contributions due to anisotropy. We expect that

5640: the contributions due to anisotropy will account for scaling

5641: behavior up to the outer scale of a 3-dimensional flow patterns.

5642: The question therefore is how to identify what this large scale

5643: is.

5644: One approach would be to simply use the scale where the structure

5645: function tends to a constant, which corresponds to the scale

5646: across which the velocity signal has decorrelated. It becomes

5647: immediately apparent that this is not a reasonable estimate of

5648: the relevant large scale. Fig.~\ref{susanpaper.scrange_long.eps}

5649: shows that the structure function stays correlated up to scales

5650: that are at least an order of magnitude larger than the height at

5651: which the measurement is made. On the other hand, if we look at

5652: the transverse structure function computed from the probe at

5653: $0.54$m, Fig.~\ref{susanpaper.scrange_trans.eps} we see that it

5654: ceases to exhibit scaling behavior at a scale that is of the

5655: order of the height of the probe.

5656: \noindent 

5657: It appears that we are observing extremely flat eddys that are

5658: correlated over very long distances in the horizontal direction

5659: but have a comparatively small correlation lengths in the

5660: direction perpendicular to the boundary. Since we know that the

5661: presence of the boundary must limit the size of the largest

5662: 3-dimensional structures, the height of the probe should be

5663: something of an upper bound on the largest 3-dimensional flow

5664: patterns that we can detect in experiments. Thus we arrive at a

5665: qualitative understanding of the kind of flow that is observed in

5666: these atmospheric measurements. The size of the largest

5667: 3-dimensional structures is determined by the decorrelation

5668: length of the transverse structure function. This is because the

5669: transverse components of the velocity are unaffected by the

5670: extended, persistent, 2-dimensional eddys that govern the

5671: behavior of the longitudinal components. The theory of scaling

5672: behavior in 3-dimensional turbulence can usefully be applied to

5673: only those flow patterns that are truly 3-dimensional. The

5674: extended flat eddys must be described in terms of a separate

5675: theory, including maybe notions of 2-dimensional turbulence which

5676: has very different scaling properties \cite{kra67}. Such considerations

5677: are outside the scope of this review.

5678: Rather, in the following

5679: analysis,  the outer-scale was chosen to be of the order of the

5680: decorrelation length of the {\em transverse} structure function

5681: (where available) or of the height of the probe. We will see

5682: below that up to a factor of 2 these are the same; taking $L$ to

5683: be as twice the height of the probe is consistent with all

5684: data. We use this estimate in the  study of both transverse and

5685: longitudinal objects.

5686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5687: \subsubsection{Extracting the universal exponents of higher $j$

5688: sectors}

5689: \label{extract}

5690: %\label{j2com}

5691: We consider the second order structure function

5692: \begin{equation}\label{Sab} S^{\alpha\beta}({\bf r}) =

5693: \la (u^\alpha({\bf x} + {\bf r}) - u^\alpha({\bf x})) (u^\beta({\bf

5694: x} + {\bf r}) - u^\beta({\bf x})) \ra. \end{equation} The lowest

5695: order anisotropic contribution to the symmetric (in indices),

5696: even parity (in ${\bf r}$ due to homogeneity), second-order

5697: structure function is the $j=2$ component of the SO(3) symmetry

5698: group. Ref.~\cite{ara98} presents a derivation of the $m=0$

5699: axisymmetric (invariant under rotation about the 3-axis) part of

5700: the $j=2$ contribution to this structure function in homogeneous

5701: turbulence.  The derivation of the full $j=2$ contribution to

5702: the symmetric, even parity structure function appears in Appendix

5703: \ref{app:fullj2}.

5704:  Fig.~\ref{Fig.1}~b shows the

5705: fit to the structure function computed from a single probe in set

5706: I

5707: \begin{equation}\label{tta0}

5708: S^{33}(r,\theta = 0) = \langle (u_1^{(3)}(x+r) -

5709: u_1^{(3)}(x))^2\rangle, \end{equation} where the subscript $1$

5710: denotes one of the two probes, with just the $j=0$ contribution.

5711: The best-fit exponent for the range $0<r/\Delta<4.5$ is

5712: $\zeta^{(2)}_0=0.68\pm0.01$ (Fig.~\ref{Fig.1}~a). Above this range, was

5713: impossible  to obtain a good fit to the data with just the

5714: isotropic exponent and Fig.~\ref{Fig.1}~b shows the peel-off from

5715: isotropic behavior above $r/\Delta = 4$.

5716: \begin{center}

5717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5718: \begin{figure}

5719: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{susanpaper.Fig1.eps}

5720: \caption{The single-probe structure

5721: function computed from data set I. (a) shows the $\chi^2$

5722: minimization by the best-fit value of the exponent in the

5723: isotropic sector $\zeta_0^{(2)}\approx 0.68$ for the single-probe

5724: structure function in the range $0 < r/\Delta <4.5$. (b) shows

5725: the fit using the best value of $\zeta_0^{(2)}$ obtained in (a),

5726: indicating the peel-off from isotropic  behavior at the end of

5727: the fitted range.}\label{Fig.1}

5728: \end{figure}

5729: \end{center}

5730: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5731: To find the $j=2$ anisotropic exponent one needs to use data taken

5732: from the two probes. To clarify the procedure we show in

5733: Fig.\ref{Figexpsetup} the geometry of set I.

5734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5735: \begin{figure}

5736: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{susanpaper-setup.eps}

5737: \caption{Diagrammatic illustration of the experimental set-up.

5738: Shown is the positioning of the probes with respect to the mean

5739: wind and how the Taylor hypothesis is employed}

5740: \label{Figexpsetup} \end{figure}

5741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5742: What was computed is actually

5743: $$

5744: S^{33}(r,\theta)=\langle [u^{(3)}_1( U_{eff} t + U_{eff}t_{\tilde

5745: r})- u^{(3)}_2( U_{eff}t)]^2\rangle $$ Here

5746: $\theta=\arctan(\Delta/ U_{eff}t_{\tilde r})$, $t_{\tilde

5747: r}=\tilde r/ U_{eff}$, and $r=\sqrt{\Delta^2+(\bar

5748: U_{eff}t_{\tilde r})^2}$. $U_{eff}$ was as in Eq.(\ref{defUeff})

5749: with $b=3$. We will refer from now on to such quantities as

5750: \begin{equation}\label{ttadep}

5751: S^{33}(r,\theta) = \langle (u_1^{(3)}(x+r) -

5752: u_2^{(3)}(x))^2\rangle \ . \end{equation}

5753: 

5754: Next, one may  fix the scaling exponent of the isotropic sector as

5755: $0.68$ and find the $j=2$ anisotropic exponent that results from

5756: fitting to the full $j=2$ tensor contribution. Finally, one needs

5757: to  fit the objects

5758: in Eqs.~(\ref{tta0}) and (\ref{ttadep}) to the sum of the $j=0$ (with

5759: scaling exponent $\zeta^{(2)}_0 = 0.68$) and the $j=2$ contributions

5760: (see Appendix \ref{app:fullj2})

5761: \begin{eqnarray}

5762: &&S^{33}(r,\theta)=S^{33}_{j=0}(r,\theta)+ S^{33}_{j=2}(r,\theta)

5763: =c_0\left({r\over \Delta}\right)^{\zeta^{(2)}_0} \Big[ 2

5764: +\zeta^{(2)}_0-\zeta^{(2)}_0 \cos^2\theta\Big] \nonumber\\

5765: &+&a\left({r\over \Delta}\right)^{\zeta_2^{(2)}} \Big[

5766: (\zeta_2^{(2)}+2)^2 -\zeta_2^{(2)}

5767: (3\zeta_2^{(2)}+2)\cos^2\theta+2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\cos^4\theta\B

5768: ig] \nonumber\\

5769: &+&b\left({r\over \Delta}\right)^{\zeta_2^{(2)}} \Big[

5770: (\zeta_2^{(2)}+2) (\zeta_2^{(2)}+3)-

5771: \zeta_2^{(2)}(3\zeta_2^{(2)}+4)\cos^2\theta+(2\zeta_2^{( 2)}+1)

5772: (\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\cos^4\theta\Big] \nonumber \\ &+&a_{9,2,1} \left({r\over

5773: \Delta}\right)^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}

5774: \Big[-2\zeta_2^{(2)} (\zeta_2^{(2)}+2) \sin\theta\cos\theta

5775: + 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\cos^3\theta\sin\theta \Big]\nonumber\\

5776: &+&a_{9,2,2} \left({r\over

5777: \Delta}\right)^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}\Big[-2\zeta_2^{(2)}

5778: (\zeta_2^{(2)}-2) \cos^2\theta\sin^2\theta\Big]

5779: \nonumber\\

5780: &+&a_{1,2,2}\left({r\over \Delta}\right)^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}

5781: \Big[-2\zeta_2^{(2)} (\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\sin^2\theta\Big].

5782: \label{fulltens}

5783: \end{eqnarray}

5784: The above fit was performed using values of $\zeta_2^{(2)}$ ranging

5785: from $0.5$ to $3$. The best value of this exponent is the one that

5786: minimizes the $\chi^2$ for the fits.  From Fig.\ref{chj2} one may read

5787: the best value to to be $1.38\pm0.15$. The fits with this choice of

5788: exponent are displayed in Fig.\ref{sfj2full}.  The corresponding

5789: values of the 5 fitted coefficients can be found in the paper

5790: \cite{ara98}.  The range of scales that are fitted to this expression

5791: is $1 < r/\Delta < 25$.  We thus conclude that that structure

5792: functions which is symmetric in $\B r$ exhibits scaling behavior

5793: over the whole scaling range, but this important fact is missed if one

5794: does not consider a superposition of the $j=0$ and $j=2$

5795: contributions.

5796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5797: \begin{figure}

5798: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{susanpaper.Fig2.eps}

5799: \caption{The $\chi^2$ minimization

5800: by the best-fit value of the exponent in the $j=2$ anisotropic

5801: sector from the fit to both the $\theta=0$ and the

5802: $\theta$-dependent structure function in the range $0 < r/\Delta

5803: <25$. }\label{chj2} \end{figure}

5804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5806: \begin{figure}

5807: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{susanpaper.Fig3.eps}

5808: \caption{The structure functions

5809: computed from data set I and fit with the $j=0$ and full $j=2$

5810: tensor contributions using the best fit values of exponents

5811: $\zeta^{(2)}_0=0.68$ and $\zeta_2^{(2)}=1.38$ in the range $0 <

5812: r/\Delta <25$. Panel (a) shows the fit to the single-probe

5813: ($\theta =0$) structure function and panel (b) shows the fit to

5814: the $\theta$-dependent structure function.}\label{sfj2full}

5815: \end{figure}

5816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5817:  Finally, let us note that the value of the exponent is

5818: perfectly in agreement with the analysis of numerical simulations

5819: \cite{ara99} in which one can comfortably integrate the

5820: structure function against the basis functions, eliminating all

5821: contributions except $j=2$ (see next section).

5822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5823: %\begin{table}

5824: %\begin{tabular} {|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

5825: %$\zeta^{(2)}_0$ & $\zeta_2^{(2)}$ & $c_0 \times 10^3 $ & $a \times

5826: %10^3$ & $b

5827: %\times 10^3 $ & $a_{9,2,1} \times 10^3 $ & $a_{9,2,2} \times 10^3 $ &

5828: %$a_{1,2,2} \times 10^3$\\

5829: %\hline 0.68 & 1.38 $\pm 0.10$ & 7 $\pm .5$ & -3.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & 2.6

5830: %$\pm $0.3 & -0.14$ \pm$ 0.02 & -5.6 $\pm $ 0.7& -4 $\pm $ 0.5

5831: %\end{tabular}

5832: %\caption{The scaling exponents and the 6 coefficients in units of

5833: %(m/sec)$^2$ as determined from the nonlinear fit of Eq. 7 to data

5834: %set I.}

5835: %\end{table}

5836: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5837: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5839: \subsubsection{Extracting the j=1 component}

5840: \label{j1com}

5841: In homogeneous flows, it follows from symmetry and parity that the often

5842: computed and 

5843: widely analyzed structure

5844: function as defined in Eq. (\ref{Sab}) does not possess any contribution

5845: from the

5846: $j=1$ sector. The lowest order anisotropic contribution belongs to the

5847: $j=2$ sector. In order to isolate the scaling

5848: behavior of the $j=1$ contribution in atmospheric shear flows

5849: we must either explicitly construct a new tensor object which will

5850: allow for such a contribution, or see if it can be extracted

5851: from  the structure function itself computed in the case of {\em

5852: inhomogeneity}. We have pursued both avenues. In the former, we

5853: construct the tensor

5854: \begin{equation}\label{Tab}

5855: T^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}) = \langle u^\alpha({\B  x} + {\B  r}) -

5856: u^\alpha({\B  x}))(u^\beta({\B  x} + {\B  r}) + u^\beta({\B

5857: x}))\rangle. \end{equation} It is easily seen that the function

5858: vanishes both in the case of $\alpha=\beta$ and when ${\B  r}$ is

5859: in the direction of homogeneity. From data set II we can

5860: calculate this function for non-homogeneous (in the shear

5861: direction) scale-separations. In general, this will exhibit mixed

5862: parity and symmetry and therefore, to minimize as far as possible

5863: the final number of fitting parameters we look at only the

5864: antisymmetric contribution. We derive the tensor contributions in

5865: the $j=1$ sector for the antisymmetric case in Appendix \ref{app:fullj1}

5866: and

5867: use this to fit for the unknown $j=1$ exponent.

5868: Below we describe the results of this analysis. Next, we computed

5869: the $\theta$-dependent structure function from set II. We expect

5870: that this could exhibit the $j=1$ component as inhomogeneity does

5871: not allow us to apply incompressibility in the different symmetry

5872: and parity sectors to eliminate this contribution as in the case

5873: of the homogeneous structure function. This structure function is

5874: symmetric but of mixed parity. We derive the tensor contributions

5875: in the $j=1$ sector for the symmetric case in Appendix \ref{app:fullj1}

5876: and use this to fit for the $j=1$ exponent.

5877: \subsubsection{Antisymmetric Contribution}

5878: We consider the tensor object in Eq.~(\ref{Tab}). In order to have

5879: as few parameters as possible in the  fitting procedure, we take

5880: the antisymmetric part

5881: $$

5882: {\widetilde T}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}) = {T^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r})

5883: - T^{\beta\alpha}({\B  r}) \over 2} = \langle u^\alpha({\B

5884: x})u^\beta({\B  x} + {\B  r})\rangle - \langle u^\beta({\B

5885: x})u^\alpha({\B  x} + {\B  r})\rangle

5886: $$ which will only have contributions from the antisymmetric

5887: $j=1$

5888: basis tensors. An additional useful property of this object is

5889: that it does not have any contribution from the isotropic

5890: helicity-free $j=0$ sector due to its antisymmetry. This allows

5891: us to isolate the $j=1$ contribution and determine its scaling

5892: exponent $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ starting from the smallest scales

5893: available. Using data from the probes at $0.27$m (probe 1) and at

5894: $0.11$m (probe 2) we calculate

5895: $$

5896: {\widetilde T}^{31}({\B  r}) = \langle u_2^{(3)}(\B

5897: x)u_1^{(1)}(\B x + \B r)\rangle - \langle u_1^{(3)}(\B x + \B

5898: r)u_2^{(1)}(\B x)\rangle \ ,$$  where again

5899: super-scripts denote the velocity component and sub-scripts

5900: denote the probe at which this component is measured. We want to

5901: fit this object to the tensor form derived in Appendix (\ref{app:fullj1}),

5902:  namely:

5903: $$ {\widetilde

5904: T}^{31}(r,\theta,\phi=0) = - a_{3,1,0}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}}\sin\theta

5905: + a_{2,1,1}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}} +

5906: a_{3,1,-1}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}}\cos\theta.

5907: $$

5908: Fig.~\ref{chj1T} gives the $\chi^2$ minimization of the fit as a

5909: function of $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ and we use the best value of $1 \pm

5910: 0.15$ for the final fit. This is shown in the left panel.

5911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5912: \begin{figure*}

5913: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{susanpaper.Fig4.eps}

5914: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{susanpaper.Fig5.eps}

5915: \caption{Right: the $\chi^2$ minimization

5916: by the best-fit value of the exponent $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ of the

5917: $j=1$ anisotropic sector from the fit to $\theta$-dependent

5918: ${\widetilde T}^{31}(r,\theta)$ function in the range $0 <

5919: r/\Delta < 2.2$. Left: The fitted ${\widetilde

5920: T}^{31}(r,\theta)$ function. The dots indicate the data and the

5921: line is the fit. }\label{chj1T}

5922:  \end{figure*}

5923: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5925: %\begin{figure}

5926: %\epsfxsize=8truecm \epsfysize=6truecm

5927: %\epsfbox{susanpaper.Fig5.eps}

5928: %\caption{The fitted ${\widetilde

5929: %T}^{31}(r,\theta)$ function. The dots indicate the data and the

5930: %line is the fit.} \label{Tfit}

5931: %\end{figure}

5932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5933: The fit in Fig.~\ref{chj1T} peels off at the end of the fitted

5934: range. 

5935: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5936: %\begin{table}

5937: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

5938: %\hl

5939: %$\zeta_1^{(2)}$ & $a_{3,1,0} $ & $a_{2,1,1}$ & $a_{3,1,-1}$

5940: %\\ \hline $1 \pm 0.15 $ & $ 0.0116 \pm 0.0013 $ & $ 0.0124 \pm 0.0013 $ &

5941: %$-0.0062 \pm 0.0008$\\

5942: %\end{tabular}

5943: %\caption{The values of the exponents and coefficients (in units

5944: %of (m/sec)$^2$) obtained from the fit to the function

5945: %${\widetilde T}^{31}(r,\theta)$.}

5946: %\end{table}

5947: The maximum range over which one can fit is of the order of the

5948: height of the probes and again, this is consistent with the

5949: considerations presented above.

5950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5951: \subsubsection{Symmetric Contribution}

5952: Finally, we compute the structure function Eq.~(\ref{ttadep}) where

5953: the subscripts denote probe 1 at $0.27$m and probe 2 at $0.11$cm.

5954: As discussed in Appendix (\ref{app:fullj1}),

5955:  since the scale separation

5956: has an inhomogeneous component, we expect a contribution from the

5957: $j=1$ anisotropic sector and we would like to extract what the

5958: scaling exponent in this sector is. Note that the $j=0$ sector

5959: contributes {\em two}  independent tensor forms with coefficients

5960: we will denote by $c_1$ and $c_2$, since incompressibility does

5961: not provide a constraint to relate them. This fact combined with

5962: Eq.~(\ref{b15}) gives us the the tensor form to which we must fit our

5963: function

5964: \begin{eqnarray}\label{sj1tens}

5965: &&S^{33}(r,\theta) = c_1r^{\zeta_0^{(2)}} + c_2r^{\zeta_0^{(2)}}\cos^2\theta

5966: +a_{1,1,0}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}}\cos\theta

5967: +a_{7,1,0}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}}2\cos\theta \\&&

5968: +a_{9,1,0}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}} \cos^3\theta +

5969: a_{8,1,1}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}} (-2\cos\theta\sin\theta)

5970: + a_{1,1,-1}r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}} \sin\theta +

5971: a_{9,1,-1} r^{\zeta_1^{(2)}}\cos^2\theta\sin\theta \nonumber \end{eqnarray}

5972: We fix the exponent $\zeta^{(2)}_0$ to be $0.68$ and perform fits with

5973: varying values of $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ for 8 unknown coefficients. The

5974: best value of $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ is obtained for the range

5975: $0<r/\Delta<4.2$ and is $1.05 \pm 0.15$ as is shown in

5976: Fig.~\ref{chj1S6}. In the left panel we show the fit to the

5977: data using this value of the exponent.

5978: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5979: %\begin{table}

5980: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

5981: %$\zeta_2$ & $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ & $c_1 \times 10^2 $ & $c_2 \times

5982: %10^2 $ & $(a_{1,1,0}+2a_{7,1,0}) $ & $a_{9,1,0} $ & $a_{8,1,1} $

5983: %& $a_{1,1,-1} $ &

5984: %$a_{9,1,-1} $ \\

5985: %& & & & $\times 10^2$ & $\times 10^2$& $\times 10^2$&$\times

5986: %10^2$ &$\times 10^2$ \\ \hline 0.68 & $1.05 \pm 0.15$ & $-41.9

5987: %\pm 5.8$ & $21.8 \pm 3.2$ &

5988: %$11.6 \pm 1.3 $ & $-7.4 \pm 0.8$ & $8.7 \pm 1.4$ & $ 55.6 \pm 6.9 $ & $

5989: -8.2

5990: %\pm 0.98 $ \\

5991: %\end{tabular}

5992: %\caption{The values of the exponents and coefficients (in units

5993: %of (m/sec)$^2$) obtained from the fit to the inhomogeneous

5994: %structure function.}

5995: %\end{table}

5996: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5997: The fit peels off at the end of the fitted range at the scale on

5998: the order of twice the height of the probe, consistent with the

5999: earlier discussion. There does not exist a well-defined

6000: $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ as given by the standard $\chi^2$ minimization

6001: procedure for ranges smaller or larger than that fitted for in

6002: Fig.~\ref{chj1S6}. The quality of the fit  is

6003: good although, as was expected from the large number of

6004: parameters in the fitting function Eq.~(\ref{sj1tens}), $\chi^2$ as

6005: a function of the $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ is not as smooth as for all

6006: previous fits and its minimum is a relatively weak one.

6007: Therefore, we present this result mainly as it provides support

6008: to that of the antisymmetric case in the previous section.

6009: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6010: \begin{figure*}

6011: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{susanpaper.Fig6.eps}

6012: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{susanpaper.Fig7.eps}

6013: \caption{Right: the $\chi^2$ minimization

6014: by the best-fit value of the exponent $\zeta_1^{(2)}$ of the

6015: $j=1$ anisotropic sector from the fit to $\theta$-dependent

6016: inhomogeneous structure function in the range $0 < r/\Delta <

6017: 2.2$. Left: The fit to the

6018: inhomogeneous structure function computed as in Eq.(\ref{sj1tens}). The dots

6019: indicate the data and the line is the fit.}\label{chj1S6}

6020: \end{figure*}

6021: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6023: %\begin{figure}

6024: %\epsfxsize=8truecm \epsfysize=6truecm

6025: %\epsfbox{susanpaper.Fig7.eps}

6026: %\caption{The fit to the

6027: %inhomogeneous structure function computed as in Eq.(\ref{sj1tens}). The

6028: dots

6029: %indicate the data and the line is the fit.} \label{Sfit7}

6030: %\end{figure}

6031: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6032: \subsubsection{Summary and conclusions}

6033: In summary, we considered the 2nd order tensor structure

6034: functions of velocity differences in the atmospheric boundary

6035: layers. The following conclusions appear important:

6036: \begin{enumerate}

6037: \item The atmospheric boundary layer exhibits 3-dimensional statistical

6038: turbulence

6039: intermingles with activities whose statistics are quite

6040: different. The latter are eddys with quasi-two dimensional

6041: nature, correlated for hundreds of meters, having little to do

6042: with the three-dimensional fluctuations discussed above. We found

6043: that the

6044: 

6045: \item We found that the ``outer scale of turbulence" as measured by the

6046: three-dimensional

6047: statistics is of the order of twice the height of the probe.

6048: 

6049: \item The inner scale is the the usual dissipative crossover, which is

6050: clearly seen

6051: as the scale connecting two different slopes in log-log plots.

6052: 

6053: \item Between the inner and the outer scales

6054: the sum of the components up to $j=2$

6055:  appears

6056: to offer

6057: an excellent representation of the structure function.

6058: \item The scaling exponents $\zeta_j^{(2)}$ are measured as $0.68\pm 0.01,~

6059: 1\pm 0.15, ~1.38\pm0.10$ for $j=0,1,2$ respectively.

6060: \end{enumerate}

6061: 

6062: We note that as far as the low order $j$ sectors are concerned, the picture

6063: that emerges for Navier-Stokes turbulence is not different from the linear

6064: advection

6065: problems that were treated in the previous section. If the trends seen here

6066: continue for higher

6067: $j$ values, we can rationalize the apparent tendency toward isotropy with

6068: decreasing scales. If indeed every anisotropic contribution

6069: introduced by the large scale forcing (or boundary conditions)

6070: decays as $(r/L)^{\zeta_j^{(2)}}$ with increasing $\zeta_j^{(2)}$

6071: as a function of $j$, then obviously when $r/L\to 0$ only the

6072: isotropic contribution survives. This is a pleasing notion that

6073: justifies the modeling of turbulence as isotropic at the small

6074: scales.

6075: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6076: \subsection{Homogeneous Shear}

6077: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6078: In this subsection we discuss recent experiments in which anisotropy is

6079: created without 

6080: inhomogeneity  \cite{she00,she02,she02a}; such experiments are

6081: particularly appealing for our purposes.  {\it Homogeneous}-shear

6082: flow can be realized in a wind tunnel by

6083:  using a variable

6084: solidity screen followed by flow straighteners.

6085: %\begin{center}

6086: %\begin{figure}[h]

6087: %\scalebox{.9}{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{shear_omo_lab.ps}}

6088: %\caption{FIGURE of experimental apparatus, warhaft}

6089: %\label{fig:homoshear}

6090: %\end{figure}

6091: %\end{center}

6092: Such a set-up results in a shear flow that remains approximately

6093: constant for the length of the tunnel. To produce high Reynolds

6094: numbers one places an active grid before the shear generating screen

6095: \cite{she00}.  In this way $Re_{\lambda}$ can be as high as 1000.\\ To

6096: assess directly the effects of anisotropy it is useful to measure

6097: statistical objects that vanish identically in the isotropic sector. A

6098: possible choice is the set of skewness and hyper-skewness

6099: \cite{fer00,sch00,sch01} as explained in Sect.~(\ref{sec:persis}).

6100: Other purely anisotropic inertial range observables can be defined by

6101: mixing longitudinal and transversal increments with an odd number of

6102: transversal components: \be S^{(p,2q+1)}(\Br) = \left< \delta

6103: u_\ell^{p}(\Br) \delta u_t^{2q+1}(\Br) \right>.

6104: \label{eq:sn_aniso} \ee

6105: Systematic measurements of these anisotropic mixed correlation functions was

6106: reported 

6107: in \cite{she02,she02a,kur00}.

6108:  From the experimental data it is not possible to exactly disentangle

6109:   different anisotropic projections in different sectors. This is because

6110: SO(3) projection requires the knowledge of the whole velocity field

6111: in a 3d sub-volume, something clearly out of reach in any experimental

6112: apparatus.  The simplest

6113:   working hypotheses one can make is that, due to the hierarchical

6114:   organization of anisotropic scaling exponents, the statistical

6115:   behavior of quantities as (\ref{eq:sn_aniso}) is dominated, at

6116:   scales small enough, by the leading $j=2$ sector. In other words,

6117:   the experimental measurements of the scaling properties of

6118:   (\ref{eq:sn_aniso}) is the best estimate of the

6119:   exponent $\zeta_{2}^{(n=p+2q+1)}$.

6120: %\begin{center}

6121: %\begin{figure}

6122: %\scalebox{.9}{

6123: %\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{warhaftsfaniso.ps}}

6124: %\caption{FIGURE from warhaft. Luca}

6125: %\label{fig:warhaft}

6126: %\end{figure}

6127: %\end{center}

6128: In \cite{she02,she02a} the plots of purely anisotropic quantities like

6129: (\ref{eq:sn_aniso}) up to order $n=8$ with $n=p+2q+1$ were shown.  The

6130: data clearly shows that these purely anisotropic structure functions

6131: have quite good power-laws behavior with exponents that are

6132: sub-leading with respect to the exponents of the isotropic structure

6133: functions of the same order, $n$.  For example $ S^{(1,3)}(r) \sim

6134: r^{1.56}$ while the fourth-order longitudinal structure function in

6135: isotropic ensembles is known to scale as $ S^{(4,0)}(r) \sim

6136: r^{1.27}$.  Similar qualitative and quantitative results were obtained

6137: by analyzing data from an atmospheric boundary layer in \cite{kur00}

6138: and in the boundary layer close to a wall \cite{iacob04}.  In the

6139: latter two works, a phenomenological fitting procedure to the large

6140: scale behavior allowed the authors to find a power law for the

6141: anisotropic structure functions which pertain to a much larger range

6142: of scales.  We draw the reader's attention to the discrepancy in the

6143: best fit for the scaling exponents founds for $ S^{(1,3)}(r)$ and

6144: $S^{(3,1)}(r)$ in \cite{she02,she02a}. Similar discrepancies are also

6145: reported for higher order structure functions.  In our view, this

6146: cannot be taken as evidence that there is a $q$-dependence of the

6147: scaling exponents of the SO(3) projections. First, the anisotropic

6148: exponents are relatively inaccurate due to statistical errors; the

6149: amplitudes of the anisotropic fluctuations are relatively small.

6150: Second, as already said, the experimental data cannot disentangle

6151: exactly the contribution of the $j=2$ sector. Therefore, it may well

6152: be that contributions from the $j=4$ (and higher) sectors affect

6153: differently the correlation functions with different tensorial

6154: structure. Similarly, other experimental investigation focused on the

6155: SO(3) decomposition \cite{sta02,sta03,wander} have found results

6156: depending on the geometric set-up of the analyzing probes. The

6157: experimental analysis of anisotropic turbulence via the SO(3)

6158: decomposition is at its infancy; more refined experimental techniques

6159: are needed before a firm conclusion can be reached on these issues.

6160: 

6161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6162: \subsubsection{Explanation of Persistence of Anisotropies}

6163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6164: \label{pers_ani}

6165: As discussed in Sect.~(\ref{sec:persis}) there are

6166:   numerical and experimental evidences of the persistence of small-scale

6167:  anisotropic fluctuations in various instances

6168: \cite{gar98,she00,kur00,pum96,bif01}.

6169: The issue has many important consequences. We would like to

6170: refer to the

6171: violation of the {\it return-to-isotropy} in  different

6172: meanings \cite{bif01}. A {\it strong} violation would be implied if the

6173: following set of inequalities between different anisotropic exponents of the

6174: same correlation function were broken:

6175: \begin{equation}

6176: \zeta^{(n)}_0 < \zeta^{(n)}_1 < \cdots < \zeta^{(n)}_j \ ,

6177: \label{eq:SnDecomp}

6178: \end{equation}

6179:  i.e. if one, or more, anisotropic sector becomes leading with respect

6180:  to the isotropic one. This would destroy the phenomenology of turbulence as

6181: developed

6182:  since Kolmogorov's theory in 1941. Turbulence would become more and

6183:  more anisotropic at smaller and smaller scales. As a result,

6184:  strong non-universalities in small-scales statistics would show up

6185:  depending on which anisotropic sector is switched on/off by the

6186:  large-scale forcing. A {\it strong} violation of the {\it

6187:  return-to-isotropy} postulate has never been observed in

6188:  Navier-Stokes turbulence. On the other hand, when the hierarchy

6189:  (\ref{eq:SnDecomp}) holds, any dimensionless anisotropic observables

6190:  made of ratios between anisotropic and isotropic projections of the

6191:  {\it same} correlation function vanishes in the small-scales limit.

6192: For example, focusing on the decomposition of longitudinal structure

6193: functions

6194: (\ref{eq:fundamental}) we may write:

6195: \be

6196:  \lim_{r\rightarrow 0}

6197: \frac{S_{jm}^{(n)}(r)}{(S_{00}^{(n)}(r))}\;\sim

6198: r^{\zeta^{(n)}_j-\zeta^{(n)}_0}

6199: \rightarrow 0.

6200: \label{eq:ret-b}

6201: \ee

6202:   A new phenomenon occurs when anisotropic fluctuations are assessed

6203: by using dimensionless observables made of {\it different}

6204: correlation functions.

6205:  For instance, by

6206:  using again the  SO($3$) decomposition of longitudinal structure

6207:  function (\ref{eq:fundamental})

6208:  one may build up anisotropic observables defined as:

6209:  \be R_{jm}^{(n)}(r) =

6210: \frac{S_{jm}^{(n)}(r)}{(S_{00}^{(2)}(r))^{n/2}}\;\sim r^{\chi_j^{(n)}}

6211: \;\;\;

6212: \mbox{ with } \;\; {\chi_j^{(n)} = \zeta_j^{(n)}-{ n \over 2} \zeta_0^{(2)}}

6213: \ .

6214: \label{eq:ret-a}

6215: \ee 

6216: This is the $n$th order moment of the velocity

6217: probability density function, normalized by its isotropic

6218: second order moments. The quantities defined in (\ref{eq:ret-a}) must

6219: be exactly zero in isotopic ensembles, and should

6220:  go to zero as power laws, $R_{jm}^{(n)}(r) \sim r^{j/3}$,

6221: in an  anisotropic ensemble in which

6222: the dimensional scaling (\ref{lumleygen}) is satisfied. On the

6223: other hand, results from experiments and numerics show

6224: a  much slower decay, and, in some cases, no decay at all

6225: \cite{she00,bif01}. We refer to this phenomenon as {\it weak} violation

6226: of the {\it return-to-isotropy}. Such a weak violation is not in

6227: contradiction

6228: with the inequalities (\ref{eq:SnDecomp}); there the

6229:  relative importance of anisotropic fluctuations with respect to

6230: isotropic fluctuation of the {\it same} correlation function are

6231: implied. The violation of the dimensional recovery-of-isotropy is

6232: simply due to the existence of anomalous scaling in the anisotropic

6233: sectors. Indeed, in  this  case, the exponents, $\chi_j^{(n)}$, governing

6234: the LHS of (\ref{eq:ret-a}) can assume values much smaller than the

6235: dimensional estimate (including negative values!).

6236:  This is exactly what is observed in the experiments and numerics. From

6237: Table~3 one realizes that due to the

6238: presence of anomalous scaling in the anisotropic sectors  we have a

6239: slow recovery-of-isotropy,

6240: in agreement with what was explained before.

6241: 

6242: The anisotropic observables built in terms of the generalized flatness

6243: or skewness discussed in section (\ref{sec:persis}) are nothing but

6244: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ret-a}) evaluated at the dissipative length scale,

6245: $r=\eta$. Therefore, the ``persistence-of-anisotropies" discussed in

6246: \cite{pum96,she00}  can be

6247: explained invoking the very same reasoning.

6248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6249: \subsubsection{Summary of experimental results: universality of the

6250: anisotropic sectors} \label{expuniver}

6251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6252: 

6253: Comparing the results obtained in

6254: \cite{she02,she02a,kur00} the following picture emerges.

6255: First, all the correlation functions up to $n=10$, show  {\it

6256: anomalous} scaling behavior, where

6257: anomalous is meant with respect to the dimensional

6258: Lumley-like prediction discussed in Sect.~(\ref{sec:dim_ana}).

6259: Second, the values of scaling exponents extracted from the two

6260: different experiments  \cite{she02a} and  \cite{kur00} are in good

6261: qualitative  agreement

6262:  (see Table~2).

6263: \begin{table}[ht]

6264: \label{tab:scaling_exp}

6265: \begin{center}

6266: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

6267: \hline 

6268: $(p,2q+1)$ & (1,1) & (1,3)     & (3,1) & (5,1) & (3,3)    &  (1,5) & (7,1) &

6269: (5,3) &  (3,5) \\ 

6270: \hline 

6271: WS &  1.05      & 1.56      & 1.42  & 2.02  & 1.89     &  1.71  & 2.33  &

6272: 2.22 & 1.99  \\

6273: KS &  1.22,1.12 & 1.58,1.54 &  -    & -     & 2.14,2.00&  -     & -     &

6274: -  & - \\

6275: %ISO &  0.67 & 1.26 &  1.26

6276: %  & 1.75     & 1.75 &  1.75     &  2.15    &    2.15  & 2.15 \\

6277:  \hline

6278: \end{tabular}

6279:  \caption{Measured scaling exponents for $S^{(p,2q+1)}(\B r)$

6280:  of various orders in two experiments. WS corresponds

6281: to \cite{she02a} and KS to \cite{kur00}}

6282:  \end{center}

6283: \end{table}

6284:  This is an important first confirmation of the {\it universality} of

6285:  scaling exponents in the $j=2$ anisotropic sector.  Finally, there

6286:  exists a clear hierarchy between isotropic and anisotropic scaling

6287:  exponents, the latter being always larger for any given order, $n$ of

6288:  the correlation function. This hierarchical organization is the

6289:  necessary and sufficient requirement for the {\it

6290:  return-to-isotropy} to hold, i.e. the small scales statistics

6291:  of any correlation function is dominated by the isotropic

6292:  fluctuations. Nevertheless the gap between isotropic and anisotropic

6293:  exponents, $\zeta_0^{(n)} - \zeta_{2}^{(n)}$, tends to shrink when $n$

6294: increases, implying that anisotropic contributions may exhibit

6295:  important sub-leading effects also at very high Re.

6296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6297: %%

6298: %

6299: % Chapter 5 - Numerical  Analysis

6300: %

6301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6302: %%

6303: \section{Analysis of DNS Data}

6304: \label{chap:numerics}

6305: Direct numerical simulations  of turbulence are natural grounds

6306: where the utility of the SO($3$) decomposition can be exploited to its

6307: maximum benefit. The reason

6308: for this is that numerical simulations, in contrast to current

6309: experiments, provide access to the full velocity field at all points

6310: of the turbulent domain. Therefore, the full SO($3$) decomposition can

6311: be realized, without the constraints of best-fits to partial data. Given a

6312: tensor structure function $\B S^{(n)}(\Br)$, cf. Eq.(\ref{Sn}),

6313: we can integrate it against the spherical tensors,

6314: $\B B^{(n)}_{q j m}(\hat{\Br})$ [e.g., (\ref{eq:so3sn})],

6315:  on a sphere of radius $r$. These integrations yield the

6316: projection of the structure function on the different sectors of the

6317: SO($3$) group, by virtue of the orthogonality of the basis tensors. On the

6318: other hand DNS suffer from limited Reynolds numbers;

6319: consequently they have relatively short inertial ranges.

6320: 

6321: Prior to the introduction of the SO(3) decomposition the numerical

6322: investigations of anisotropic flows were focused on either single

6323: point or two-points correlations, limited, often, to the analysis of

6324: the Fourier transforms in wavevector space. The most recent,

6325: highly-resolved, numerical investigation of this kind was reported in

6326: \cite{ish02}; there the full tensorial properties of the Fourier

6327: transform of the two-point velocity correlation, $Q^{\alpha

6328: \beta}(\Bk) \EqDef \int d\Br e^{i

6329: \Bk \Br} \la u^\alpha(\Bx+\Br)u^\beta(\Bx) \ra $, were calculated in a {\it

6330: homogeneous} shear \cite{hin75,rog82}. The main result is a

6331: confirmation of Lumley's prediction for the scaling exponent of the purely

6332: anisotropic

6333: co-spectrum:

6334: \begin{equation}

6335: E^{\alpha \beta}(k) \sim k^{-7/3}\;\;\; \mbox

6336: {where}\;\;\; E^{\alpha \beta}(k) = \int_{{k \over 2}<|\Bp|<2k} d\Bp

6337: Q^{\alpha \beta}(\Bp) \ , \label{cospec}

6338: \end{equation}

6339: where $\alpha \neq \beta$ to eliminate  the

6340: isotropic contribution. Only recently DNS were performed to probe

6341: the anisotropic component in a systematic way by

6342: exploiting the SO($3$) decomposition

6343: \cite{ara99,bif01a,bif02a,bif02,bif03a}.

6344: Here we review the main findings, showing that

6345: \begin{enumerate} 

6346: \item The scaling laws (log-log plots) at moderate Reynolds numbers are

6347: significantly improved by projecting the raw correlation functions onto

6348: each $j$-sectors. The improvement is particular noticeable whenever strong

6349: anisotropies are present in

6350: the system, as in the case of channel flows \cite{ara99,bif02a};

6351: \item Anisotropic sectors with $j \ge 2$ (inaccessible in present

6352: experimental data) 

6353: possess good scaling laws \cite{bif01a,bif02};

6354: \item The scaling exponents  are discrete and increasing as a

6355: function of $j$.

6356: \item The exponents are {\it anomalous}; i.e.  they differ from the

6357: dimensional

6358: prediction (\ref{lumleygen}).

6359: \item  There exists

6360:  preliminary evidence that also for $j > 2$, the anomalous  exponents

6361:  are {\it universal}, i.e. the scaling properties are independent of the

6362:  external forcing mechanism \cite{bif03a}.

6363: \end{enumerate}

6364: DNS were performed both in wall-bounded flows and in homogeneous (but

6365: anisotropic) 

6366: turbulence. In wall-bounded flows the anisotropies are accompanied by {\it

6367: inhomogeneous} effects. The presence of such effects may

6368:  spoil the very meaning of scaling, and the SO($3$) decomposition

6369:  should be supplemented by some tool to project on the homogeneous

6370:  components.  Otherwise, the SO(3) decomposition must be used

6371:  carefully, and locally, only in those regions of the tested flow

6372:  where inhomogeneous effects are confined mostly to

6373:  large-scales \cite{ara99,bif02a}.  In the second part of

6374:  this section, we discuss numerical experiments

6375:  built such as to have a perfectly {\it homogeneous} and {\it

6376:  anisotropic} statistics at all scales.  One such example is {\it

6377:  homogeneous shear flows} \cite{sch00,cas00}. More recently,

6378:  other homogeneous anisotropic flows have been invented and simulated,

6379:  in particular the random-Kolmogorov-flow

6380:  \cite{bif01a,bif02,bif03b} and  a convective cell with an imposed linear

6381: mean profile of

6382:  temperature \cite{bif03a}.

6383: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6384: \subsection{Anisotropic and inhomogeneous statistics: Channel flows}

6385: \label{sec:num_channel}

6386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6387: In this section, we discuss the analysis of a DNS of a channel flow

6388: using the SO($3$) decomposition.  The coordinates are chosen

6389:  such that $\hat{x}$, $\hat{y}$ and $\hat{z}$ are the stream-wise,

6390: span-wise,

6391: and wall-normal direction respectively. The simulation was done on a

6392: grid with $256$ points in the stream-wise direction and $128\times128$

6393: points in the two other directions. The boundary conditions were

6394: periodic in the span-wise and stream-wise directions and no-slip on the

6395: walls. The Reynolds-number based on the Taylor micro-scale was quite

6396: moderate,

6397: $R_{\lambda}\approx 70$ at the center of the channel $(z=64)$. The

6398: simulation was fully symmetric with respect to the central plane. For

6399: more details on the averaged quantities and on the numerical code, see

6400: refs.~\cite{ara99,ama97,ama97a}.

6401: 

6402: The analysis focused on longitudinal second-, forth- and sixth-order

6403: structure functions:

6404: $$

6405:   S^{(n)}(\Br^c,\Br) \equiv \left<\big[\delta

6406:   u_\ell(\Br^c,\Br)\big]^n\right>, \quad \delta u_\ell(\Br^c,\Br) \equiv

6407:   \hat{\Br}\cdot \big[\Bu(\Br^c+\Br,t)-\Bu(\Br^c-\Br,t) \big] \ .

6408: $$

6409: The $\Br^c$ coordinate specifies the location of the measurement

6410: (i.e., the center of mass of the two measurement points), and $2\Br$

6411: is the separation vector.  Previous analysis of the same data-base

6412: \cite{ama97} as well as of other DNS \cite{bor96} and

6413: experimental data \cite{sad94,gau98} in anisotropic flows

6414: found that the scaling exponents of energy spectra, energy co-spectra

6415: and of longitudinal structure functions exhibit strong dependence on

6416: the position $r_c$.  For example, in \cite{tos99}

6417: the authors studied the longitudinal structure functions at fixed

6418: distances from the walls: $$S^{(n)}(r,z)\equiv \la

6419: (u_x(x+r,y,z)-u_x(x,y,z))^n\ra_z$$ where $\la \cdots \ra_z$ denotes a

6420: spatial average on a plane at a fixed height $z$, $1<z<64$. For this

6421: set of observables they found that: (i) These structure functions did

6422: not exhibit clear scaling behavior as a function of the distance

6423: $r$. Consequently, one needed to resort to Extended-Self-Similarity

6424: (ESS) \cite{ben93b} in order to extract a set of {\rm relative}

6425: scaling exponents $ \hat{\zeta}^{(n)}(z) \equiv

6426: \zeta^{(n)}(z)/\zeta^{(3)}(z)$;

6427: (ii) the relative exponents, $ \hat{\zeta}^{(n)}(z)$ depended strongly on

6428: the height $z$. Moreover, only at the center of the channel and very

6429: close to the walls the error bars on the relative scaling exponents

6430: extracted by using ESS were small enough to claim the very existence

6431: of scaling behavior in any sense.  Similarly, an experimental analysis

6432: of a turbulent flow behind a cylinder \cite{gau98} showed a

6433: strong dependence of the relative scaling exponents on the position

6434: behind the cylinder for not too big distances from the obstacle,

6435: i.e. where anisotropic effects may still be relevant in a wide range

6436: of scales.  In the following we present an interpretation of the

6437: variations in the scaling exponents observed in non-isotropic and

6438: non-homogeneous flows upon changing the position in which the analysis

6439: is performed. In particular, we will show that decomposing the

6440: statistical objects into their different $(j,m)$ sectors rationalizes

6441: the findings, i.e.  scaling exponents in given $(j,m)$ sector appear

6442: quite independent of the spatial location; only the {\em amplitudes}

6443: of the SO(3) decomposition depend strongly on the spatial location.

6444: The analysis showed three major results. The first was the vast

6445: improvement in scaling behavior of the structure functions as a result

6446: of the decomposition. A typical example is found in

6447: Fig.(\ref{fig:channel.fig1} )

6448: \begin{figure}[!h]

6449: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig1.so3.eps}

6450: \caption{Log-log plot of the isotropic sector of the 4th order structure

6451: function $S^{(4)}_{0,0}(r)$, vs. $r$ at the center of the channel

6452: $r^c_z=64$ (+). The data represented by ($\times$) correspond to the

6453: raw longitudinal structure function, $S^{(4)}(r^c_z=64,r\hat x)$

6454: averaged over the central plane only. The dashed line corresponds to

6455: the intermittent isotropic high-Reynolds numbers exponents

6456: $\zeta^{(4)}_0 = 1.28$.}

6457: \label{fig:channel.fig1}

6458: \end{figure}

6459:  where the raw fourth-order

6460: structure function, evaluated on the central plane, is compared to its

6461: $j=0$ component. Without the SO($3$) decomposition there is no

6462: scaling behavior at all and one needs ESS

6463: to estimate the scaling exponents. On the other hand, the

6464: $j=0$ component of the structure function shows a clear scaling

6465: behavior with the expected exponent, $\zeta^{(4)}_{0} = 1.28$. This

6466: strengthens the foliation hypothesis, according to which, the raw

6467: structure function is a superposition of power laws from different

6468: sectors of the SO($3$) group.  Such a sum looses its scale invariance

6469: once the weights of the different exponents are of the same order and

6470: the inertial range is small. In such cases, one needs the SO($3$)

6471: decomposition to isolate the different sectors and retain scale

6472: invariance.

6473: \begin{figure}[!h]

6474: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig3.so3.eps}

6475: \caption{

6476: Logarithmic local slopes

6477:   of the ESS plot of raw structure function,$\frac{d log(S^{(4)}(r,r_c)}{d

6478: log(S^{(2)}(r,r_c)}$,

6479: of order 4 versus raw structure function of order 2

6480: at $r_c^z=64$ ($\times$), at $r_c^z=32$ ($\star$) and of the $j=0$

6481: projection, $\frac{d log(S^{(4)}_{00}(r,r_c)}{d log(S^{(2)}_{00}(r,r_c)}$,

6482: centered at $r_c^z=64$ ($+$), and at $r_c^z=32 $($\Box$).

6483: Also two horizontal lines

6484: corresponding to the high-Reynolds number limit, $1.82$, and to the

6485: K41 non-intermittent value, $2$, are shown.}

6486: \label{fig:channel.fig3}

6487: \end{figure}

6488: 

6489: A second prominent result is the apparent universality of the

6490: isotropic exponents. To show this in \cite{ara99} the local slopes,

6491: $\frac{d log(S^{(4)}_{00}(r)}{d log(S^{(2)}_{00}(r)}$,

6492: of the ESS curves  of the isotropic forth-order structure-function versus

6493: the

6494: isotropic second-order structure function were calculated at varying

6495: the

6496: distance from the wall.

6497:  Despite their different locations, all curves  show the same ESS slope

6498: 1.82, which is the expected (anomalous) value. In

6499: Fig.(\ref{fig:channel.fig3}) one  picture is presented for the

6500: logarithmic local slopes at two different distances from the

6501: channel boundary. To appreciate the improvements in scaling

6502: and universality, also the slopes of the ESS on the raw structure

6503: functions are presented

6504: Finally, the analysis provided another evidence that the $j=2$

6505: scaling exponent of the second order structure function is about

6506: $4/3$, which is the dimensional theoretical prediction given in

6507: (\ref{eq:Lumley})

6508: (see also \cite{lum67,yak94,fal95,gro94,bif02}).

6509:  Considering the relatively low

6510: Reynolds-number and the fact that the prefactors $a_{j,m}$ in the

6511: SO($3$) decomposition (\ref{eq:SnDecomp}) are non-universal, together

6512: with the experimental result reported in

6513: \cite{ara98,kur00,she02,she02a}, these findings give

6514: strong support to the view that the scaling exponent in the $j=2$

6515: sector is universal.

6516: Before concluding this section we cite that

6517: SO(3) and SO(2) decomposition have also been exploited in the analysis

6518: of channel flow data to highlights the importance of structures as streaks

6519: and 

6520: hairpin filaments typical of many wall bounded flow \cite{bif02a}.

6521: Preliminary investigation of the importance of SO(3) decomposition

6522: to evaluate the performance of sub grid models used in Large Eddy

6523: Simulations

6524: \cite{mene00}

6525: have also been reported in \cite{bif03b}.

6526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6527: \subsection{Anisotropic-homogeneous flows}

6528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6529: \label{sec:anis-hom}

6530: Direct numerical simulations offer the unique opportunity to

6531: study the physics of anisotropy in {\it ideal} situations, that is in

6532: perfectly homogeneous flows. Recently, considerable effort has been spent

6533: on simulating a Random-Kolmogorov-Flow (RKF)

6534: \cite{bif01a,bif02,bif03b}.  The RKF  is

6535: fully periodic, incompressible and with anisotropic large-scale energy

6536: injection. A convenient choice for the forcing is ${\f}=(0,0,f_z(x))$

6537: with $f_z(x)=F_1 \cos[2\pi x/L_x +\phi_1(t)] + F_2

6538: \cos[4 \pi x/ L_x +\phi_2(t)]$, with constant amplitudes $F_{1,2}$ and

6539: independent, uniformly distributed, $\delta$-correlated in time and with

6540:  random

6541: phases $\phi_{1,2}(t)$. The random phases

6542: lead to a homogeneous statistics.  To give a first validation of the

6543: statistical properties of the RKF flow we plot in

6544: fig.~\ref{fig:RKF.spectra}

6545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6546: \begin{figure}[h]

6547: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{RKF.spectra.tex.eps}

6548: \caption{Log-log plot of instantaneous energy spectrum in the

6549: isotropic sector $E(k)$ (top). The straight line is the reference isotropic

6550: $k^{-5/3}$ power law. Instantaneous co-spectrum $E_{yz}(k_z)$

6551: (bottom). Here the straight line gives the reference $k_z^{-7/3}$

6552: anisotropic Lumley prediction. The two spectra have been shifted along

6553: the vertical direction for the sake of presentation.}

6554: \label{fig:RKF.spectra}

6555: \end{figure}

6556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6557: the instantaneous energy spectrum,

6558: $$E(k)=\int_{|\Bq|=k} \la \Bu(\Bq)\cdot \Bu^*(\Bq) \ra d\Bq.$$  It

6559: exhibits a scaling law in close agreement with the K41 isotropic behavior

6560: $k^{-5/3}$. Also purely anisotropic quantities as the co-spectra

6561: (\ref{cospec}),

6562: show a good agreement with the Lumley  $k^{-7/3}$.

6563: DNS of the RKF were reported in \cite{bif01a,bif02,bif03b}. The

6564: resolution was $256^3$ reaching  $Re_{\lambda}\sim 100$,

6565:  collecting up to $70$ eddy

6566:  turn over times.  A long time  average is necessary because of the

6567: formation of persistent

6568:  large-scale structures inducing strong oscillations of the mean

6569:  energy evolution. This is typical to many strongly anisotropic flows.

6570: The viscous term was replaced by a

6571:  second-order hyper-viscosity, $-\nu \Delta^2{\Bu}$.

6572:   Thanks to both the high degree of homogeneity and to

6573:  the high number of independent samples, a quantitative analysis of

6574:  scaling laws of longitudinal structure functions up to the  anisotropic

6575:  sector $j=6$ and up to order $n=6$ was possible.  In other words, the

6576: longitudinal structure functions could be decomposed according to

6577: $$

6578: S^{(n)}(\Br) = \sum_{j=0}^{6}\sum_{m=-j}^{j} S^{(n)}_{jm}(r)

6579: Y_{jm}(\unitr ) \quad \rm{for }~n\le 6 .

6580: $$

6581: In fig.~\ref{fig:RKF.fig1} we present the results for the

6582:   isotropic sector. Here we compare the raw structure

6583:   functions in the three directions with the projection

6584:   $S^{(2)}_{00}(r)$, and their logarithmic local slopes (inset).

6585: \begin{figure}[!h]

6586: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{RKF.fig1.eps}

6587: \caption{ Analysis on

6588: the real space. Log-log plot of $S^{(2)}_{00}(r)$ versus $r$ (top

6589: curve), and of the

6590: three undecomposed longitudinal structure functions in the three

6591: directions $x,y,z$ (three bottom curves).  The

6592: straight line gives the best fit slope $\zeta_{0}^{(2)}=0.7$. Inset:

6593: logarithmic 

6594: local slopes of the same curves in the main body of the figure (same

6595: symbols). Notice that only the projected curve shows a nice plateau }

6596: \label{fig:RKF.fig1}

6597: \end{figure}

6598: Only for the projected correlation it is possible to measure (with

6599: $5\%$ of accuracy) the scaling exponent by a direct log-log fit versus

6600: the scale separation. The best fit gives $\zeta_{0}^{(2)} = 0.70 \pm

6601: 0.03$.  On the contrary, the undecomposed structure functions are

6602: overwhelmed by the anisotropic effects present at all scales, and the

6603: scaling law is completely spoiled. We stress the accuracy

6604: of these results; already at these modest Reynolds numbers it is

6605: possible to ascertain the isotropic scaling laws if the anisotropic

6606: fluctuations are disentangled properly.

6607: 

6608: In figure \ref{fig:RKF.fig3} there is an overview for the second order

6609: structure functions in all the sectors, isotropic and anisotropic, for which

6610: the signal-to-noise ratio is high enough to ensure statistically

6611: stable results. Sectors with odd $j$ are absent due to the

6612: parity symmetry of the longitudinal structure function. We conclude from

6613: figure \ref{fig:RKF.fig3} a clear foliation in terms of the $j$

6614: index\,: sectors with the same $j$ but different $m$ exhibit very

6615: close scaling exponents.

6616: In Table~3 the measured exponents are compiled,

6617: showing the best power law fits for

6618: structure functions of orders $n=2,4,6$.

6619: \begin{figure}[!h]

6620: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{RKF.fig3.eps}

6621: \caption{Log-log plot of the second order structure function in all

6622: sectors with a strong signal. Symbols refer to sectors (j,m) as follows:

6623:   $(0,0)$, ($+$); $(2,2)$,

6624: ($\times$); $(4,0)$, ($\Box$); $(4,2)$, ($\star$); $(6,0)$, ($\circ$);

6625: $(6,2)$, ($\blacksquare$). The statistical and numerical noise affecting

6626: the SO(3) projection is estimated as the threshold where the $j=6$

6627: sector starts to deviate from the monotonic decreasing behavior,

6628: i.e. ${\mathcal O}(10^{-3})$}

6629: \label{fig:RKF.fig3}

6630: \end{figure}

6631: We stress again the discreteness and monotonicity of the scaling

6632: exponents as assumed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:SnDecomp});

6633: there is no saturation of the exponents as a function of

6634: $j$. Second, the measured exponents in the sectors $j=4$

6635: and $j=6$ are anomalous, i.e. they differ from the dimensional

6636: estimate given in \ref{lumleygen}.

6637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6638: \begin{table}[!h]

6639: \label{tab:compile}

6640: \begin{center}

6641: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}

6642: \hline

6643: $n$  & $j=0$  & $j=2$ & $j=4$ & $j=6  $\,\\

6644: \hline

6645: & $\zeta_{0}^{(n)}$ --- $n/3  $ \,& $\zeta_{2}^{(n)}$ ---

6646: $ (n+2)/3   $\, & $\zeta_{4}^{(n)}$ --- $ (n+4)/3  $\, &

6647: $\zeta_{6}^{(n)}$ --- $  (n+6)/3  $\,\\

6648: \hline

6649: 2 & 0.70 (2) --- 0.66 & 1.1 (1) --- 1.33 & 1.65 (5) --- 2.00 & 3.2 (2)

6650: --- 2.66 \\ 

6651: 4 & 1.28 (4) --- 1.33 & 1.6 (1) --- 2.00 & 2.25 (10) --- 2.66

6652: & 3.1 (2) --- 3.33 \\

6653: 6 & 1.81 (6) --- 2.00 & 2.1 (1) --- 2.33 & 2.50

6654: (10) --- 3.33 & 3.3 (2) --- 4.00 \\

6655: \hline \end{tabular}

6656: \caption{Summary of  the  numerical and experimental

6657: findings for the scaling exponents in the isotropic and anisotropic

6658: sectors. The values for the anisotropic sector $j=2$ are taken from

6659: the experiments {\protect \cite{kur00,she02a}}. For the values

6660: extracted from the numerical simulation (columns $j=0,4,6$), error

6661: bars are estimated from the oscillation of the local slopes {\protect

6662: \cite{bif01a,bif03b}}.  For the experimental data the error is

6663: given as the mismatch between the two experiments.  For all sectors we

6664: also give the dimensional estimate $\zeta_{j}^{(n)} = (n+j)/3$

6665: {\protect \cite{bif02}}.}

6666: \end{center}

6667: \end{table}

6668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% tabella %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6669: Unfortunately, from the RKF data it was not possible to obtain clean

6670: results for  the $j=2$ sector. This is because of the presence of

6671: an annoying change of sign in the projections $S^{(n)}_{2m}(r)$ for

6672: any $m$ (and any order $n$).  Still, the overall consistency of the

6673: foliation and hierarchical organization of scaling exponents can be

6674: checked by collecting  the scaling exponents in the $j=2$ sector from

6675: the two sets of   experiments

6676: \cite{kur00,she02a} previously discussed.

6677:  In Fig.~\ref{fig:RKF+EXP} we show both numerical data and the

6678:  experimental values as extracted from

6679: \cite{kur00,she02a}.

6680:  The resulting  picture

6681: is fully coherent\,: experimental data coming from the $j=2$ sector

6682: fit well in the global trend.  As one can see from table~3

6683: all the anisotropic sectors show {\it anomalous} scaling laws.

6684: \begin{figure}[!h]

6685: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{RKF.fig4.eps}

6686: \caption{Scaling exponents, $\zeta_{j}^{(n)}$,  of

6687:   structure functions of order $n=2,4,6$ for isotropic and anisotropic

6688:   sectors. From the DNS of RKF we have\,: isotropic sector, $j=0$

6689:   ($+$); anisotropic sectors, $j=4$ ($\times$) and $j=6$

6690:   ($\star$). From the experimental data {\protect \cite{kur00,she02a}},

6691:   we have $j=2$ ($\Box$). For an estimate

6692:  of error bars see Table 3.

6693: %%%%% The straight lines

6694: %correspond to the dimensional prediction (\ref{lumleygen})

6695: }

6696: \label{fig:RKF+EXP}

6697: \end{figure}

6698: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6700: \subsubsection{Universality of Anisotropic Fluctuations}

6701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6703: The

6704: third numerical experiment that  we discuss here is devoted to study  {\it

6705: universal}

6706: properties of anisotropic scaling. We have already commented that

6707: there is a nice qualitative and quantitative agreement between the

6708: values extracted for the $j=2$ sector (the only one available from

6709: experimental data) from different experiments. In order to check

6710: whether this universality holds also in higher anisotropic sectors one

6711: has to rely on DNS. In \cite{bif03a} a first direct comparison

6712: between anisotropic scaling of longitudinal structure functions from

6713: two different homogeneous systems, the RKF and a {\it homogeneous \rb}

6714: convective flow was reported.

6715:  

6716: A  Homogeneous \rb system is a convective cell with fixed

6717: linear mean temperature profile along the vertical direction.  The

6718: flow is obtained by decomposing the temperature field as the sum of a

6719: linear profile plus a fluctuating part, $T(x,y,z;t)= T'(x,y,z;t) + (\Delta

6720: T/2 - z \Delta T/H) $, where $H$ is the cell height and $\Delta T$

6721: the background temperature difference.  The evolution of the system can

6722: be described by a modified version \cite{gro02} of the Boussinesq system

6723: \cite{kad01}:

6724: \bea

6725:  \partial_t \Bu &+& \lp\Bu\cdot\nabla\rp \Bu =

6726:  -\nabla p + \nu \nabla^2 \Bu + \alpha g T' {\unitz} \nonumber \\

6727:  \partial_t T' &+& \lp\Bu\cdot\nabla\rp T' =

6728:   \kappa \nabla^2 T' - {{\Delta T} \over H} v_z. \nonumber

6729: \eea

6730: %MODIFICATO QUI

6731: where $\alpha$ is the thermal expansion constant,

6732: $\nu$ and $\kappa$ the kinematic

6733: viscosity and the thermal diffusivity coefficients,

6734: and $g$ is the acceleration due to  gravity.

6735: In   \cite{bif03a}

6736: fully periodic boundary conditions were  used for the velocity field,

6737: $\Bu$, and temperature, $T'$, fields.

6738: 

6739: Anisotropic effects in the \rb system were analyzed in \cite{bif03a}

6740: starting from the  stationary equation for the second order

6741: velocity structure functions; the extension of K\'arm\'an-Howarth

6742: equation in the presence of a buoyancy term \cite{yak92}. The result

6743: is, neglecting for simplicity tensorial symbols:

6744: \bea

6745: \label{general2}

6746: \la \delta u(\r)^3 \ra &\sim& \ \ \eb \ r \ + \ \alpha g\unitz r\

6747: \cdot \ \la \delta T(\r)\ \delta u(\r)\ra\\ _{j = 0,1,\dots} &\ & \ \

6748: _{j=0} \quad \ \ _{j=1 \quad \otimes \quad j=1,2,\dots} \nonumber \eea

6749: where  $\bar \epsilon$  denotes the energy dissipation, $\la

6750: \delta u(\r)^3 \ra$ and $\la \delta T(\r)\ \delta u(\r)\ra$, the

6751: general third-order velocity correlation and temperature-velocity

6752: correlation, respectively.  In Eq.~(\ref{general2})  for each term the

6753: value of its total angular momentum, $j$, is indicated.  Notice that

6754: the

6755: energy dissipation term in (\ref{general2}) has a non-vanishing limit,

6756: for high Re, only in the isotropic sector, $j=0$. On the

6757: other hand, the buoyancy coupling, $\alpha g\unitz$, brings only

6758: angular momentum $j=1$. Due to the usual rule of composition of angular

6759: momenta we have that the buoyancy term, $\alpha g \unitz \cdot \la

6760: \delta T(\r)\ \delta u(\r)\ra$, has a {\it total} angular momentum

6761: given by: $j_{tot}= 1 \otimes j = \{j-1,j,j+1\}$.  Using the

6762: angular momenta summation rule for $j$, one can decompose the previous

6763: equation obtaining the following dimensional matching, in the

6764: isotropic sector: $$

6765: \la \delta u(r)^3 \ra_{j=0} \sim  \epsilon\ r +

6766: \alpha g \hat{{\bf z}} r \la \delta u(r) \ \delta

6767: T(r)\ra_{j=1} + \dots $$

6768: and in the anisotropic sectors, $j >0$:

6769: \be

6770: \la \delta u(r)^3 \ra_{j} \sim  \ \ \alpha g\ \hat{{\bf z}}

6771: r\ \la \delta u(r) \ \delta T(r) \ra_{(j-1)} + \dots

6772: \label{aniso}

6773: \ee

6774: where sub-dominant contributions coming from the $j$ and $j+1$ sectors

6775: of $\la \delta v(r) \ \delta T(r) \ra$ are neglected.

6776: 

6777: In the isotropic sector the buoyancy term is sub-dominant with respect

6778: to the dissipation term at scales smaller than the Bolgiano length,

6779: $L_B=(\bar \epsilon)^{5/4}N^{-3/4}(\alpha g)^{-3/2}$ where $N$ is the rate

6780: of temperature dissipation.

6781:  This is the case for the numerical simulation presented in

6782: \cite{bif03a}, where velocity fluctuations are closer to the typical

6783: Kolmogorov scaling, $\delta u(r) \sim r^{1/3}$, rather than to the

6784: Bolgiano-Obukhov scaling \cite{my75},

6785: $\delta u(r) \sim r^{3/5}$.\\ Regarding the

6786: anisotropic sectors, Eq.(\ref{aniso})

6787: is the  {\it dimensional prediction} for the system,

6788: consistent with the anisotropic properties of the buoyancy term,

6789: sector by sector.   \\ In \cite{bif03a} the SO(3)

6790: decomposition was applied in this system

6791: to  velocity structure functions (\ref{eq:fundamental}) and to objects

6792:  $$G^{(q,1)}(\r) =

6793: \la\left[\lp\Bu\lp\r\rp-\Bu\lp 0 \rp\rp\cdot \unitr\right]^{q}\lp T\lp\r

6794: \rp-T\lp 0 \rp\rp \ra\, = \sum_{jm}  G^{(q,1)}_{jm}(r)$$

6795: 

6796: The dimensional matching of Eq.~(\ref{aniso}) can be extended to any

6797: order, giving:

6798: $$

6799:    S^{(p)}_{jm}(r) \sim r { G}^{(p-2,1)}_{j-1,m}(r).

6800: $$

6801: Denoting with $\chi_j^{(q,1)}$ the anisotropic scaling exponents of

6802: the buoyancy terms, ${G}^{(q,1)}_{jm}(r) \sim r^{\chi_j^{(q,1)}}$

6803: we

6804: get the dimensional estimate:

6805: \be

6806: \zeta_j^{(p)} = 1 + \chi_{j-1}^{(p-2,1)}, \quad \mbox{ (dimensional

6807: prediction)}

6808: \label{dim_exp}

6809: \ee

6810: In \cite{bif03a} it was shown that

6811: this dimensional prediction is not obeyed; the exponents $\zeta_j^{(n)}$

6812: appear to be systematically smaller than the prediction (\ref{dim_exp}).

6813:  Interestingly, enough the log-log plots computed in the sectors

6814: $j=4,6$ show a good

6815: qualitative agreement with those calculated in the RKF

6816: of ref \cite{bif01a} as can be seen in

6817: fig.~\ref{fig:RKF+HRB.1} where we  compare  the

6818: projection on the $j=4$ sector of  structure

6819: functions of different orders.

6820: \begin{figure}[h]

6821: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{HRB+RKF.eps}

6822: \caption{ Log-log plot of compensated anisotropic $j=4,m=0$ projections

6823:   $S^{(p)}_{4,0}(r)/r^{\zeta_4^{(p)}}$ {\it vs} $r$, for both HRB and RKF

6824:   flows. Top curves refer to $p=2$: the best fit exponents which

6825:   compensate HRB and RKF curves are $\zeta_4^{(2)}=1.7$ and

6826:   $\zeta_4^{(2)}=1.66$, respectively. Curves in the middle refer to the

6827:   same quantities but for $p=4$: compensation has been obtained with

6828:   $\zeta_4^{(4)}=2.05$ for HRB, and $\zeta_4^{(4)}=2.2$ for RKF. Bottom

6829: curves

6830:   refer to $p=6$: here $\zeta_4^{(6)}=2.3$ for HRB, and $\zeta_4^{(6)}=2.5$

6831: for

6832:   RKF. Notice that the curves of the two flows are compensated with

6833:   very similar values of the exponents (within $10\%$). Inset: the

6834:   same but for $j=4,m=2$, compensation has been done with the same

6835:   values used for $j=4,m=0$, to show the independence of the scaling

6836:   exponents from the choice of the reference axis labeled with $m$ .

6837: %Log-log plot of $S^{(p)}_{4,0}(r)$

6838: %{\it vs} $r$ for both the  Homogeneous \rb  and the Random Kolmogorov Flow.

6839: %  The curves  refer to the orders $p=3,4,5,6$ (top to bottom).

6840: %  Inset: same for $j=6$.

6841: }

6842: \label{fig:RKF+HRB.1}

6843: \end{figure} 

6844: Similar results are obtained for $j=6$

6845: sector. These preliminary findings, if confirmed by other

6846: independent measurements, would support  {\it universality}

6847: for anisotropic scaling exponents in three dimensional turbulence.

6848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6849: \subsection{Scaling of Longitudinal and Transversal structure functions}

6850: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6851: As discussed in

6852: Sect.~\ref{sec:long-tran}

6853:  there  exists  experimental and numerical data  suggesting that

6854: {\it longitudinal} and {\it transversal } structure functions

6855: in supposedly isotropic flows show

6856: different scaling exponents \cite{she02,che97,dhr97,got02,wat99}.

6857:   One needs to clearly

6858: distinguish between experimental and numerical data.  The former can

6859: never be considered fully isotropic; the best one can do is to try to

6860: perform a multi-fit procedure to clean out sub-leading anisotropic

6861: contributions as already explained in details in Sect.

6862: \ref{chap:experiment}. This fitting procedure is, of

6863: course, affected by experimental errors which cannot be eliminated.

6864: Therefore it

6865: is quite dangerous to make any firm conclusion about

6866: supposed different scaling exponents of longitudinal and transversal

6867: isotropic scaling on the basis of only experimental data .

6868: Numerical data are not much safer. Here anisotropy can be much better

6869: controlled.

6870: With isotropic forcing the only source of

6871: anisotropy is the

6872:  3-dimensional grid whose effect is usually too small

6873: to explain

6874: possible discrepancies between longitudinal and transversal

6875: scalings. Indeed some state-of-the-art isotropic

6876: DNS indicate the possibility

6877: of different scaling exponents both for inertial range structure functions

6878: \cite{got02} and for coarse grained energy and enstrophy measures

6879: \cite{che97,che97b}.   In Table~4 we

6880: summarize the best-fit values of the scaling exponents measured in

6881: \cite{got02}.

6882: %\begin{figure}[h]

6883: %\scalebox{1.9}{

6884: %\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ls.long.toshi.ps}}

6885: %\caption{FIGURE of the longitudinal local scaling

6886: %exponents, from gotoh}

6887: %\label{fig:toshi}

6888: %\end{figure}

6889: %\begin{figure}[h]

6890: %\scalebox{1.9}{

6891: %\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ls.tra.toshi.ps}}

6892: %\caption{FIGURE of the  transversal local  scaling

6893: %exponents, from gotoh}

6894: %\label{fig:toshib}

6895: %\end{figure}

6896: The small scale fluctuations were probed \cite{che97b}

6897: by comparing the 

6898: scaling of the coarse grained energy dissipation

6899:  over a box of size $r$, $\tilde \epsilon (r)$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:coarse}),

6900: and of the coarse grained enstrophy dissipation:

6901: $\omega(r,\Bx) = {1\over r^3}

6902: \int_{|y| < r} d\By ~\omega(\Bx +\By)$

6903: where $\omega(\Bx)$ is the local enstrophy dissipation.  Different

6904: scaling exponents were measured for the averaged quantities, $\la

6905: (\tilde \epsilon)^p(r)\ra$, $\la\omega^p(r)\ra$.  Being scalar

6906: quantities one expects that in isotropic ensembles they would not have

6907: different exponents. From the theoretical point of view, different scaling

6908: exponents of

6909: longitudinal and transverse structure functions in isotropic ensembles

6910: are unlikely.  In the language of the SO(3) decomposition it amounts

6911: to the scaling exponents depending on the $q$-index which labels

6912: different basis functions with the same rotation properties. In the

6913: exactly solvable models examined before, this had never happened. In

6914: general one would need a different symmetry to lift the degeneracy of

6915: different $q$ dependent basis functions. At this point this problem

6916: remains somehow unsettled. New numerical tests on larger grids and/or

6917: with a better resolved viscous behavior are needed before a firm

6918: statement can be made.

6919: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6920: \begin{table}[h]

6921: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

6922: \hline

6923: n&2&4&6&8&10 \\

6924: \hline

6925: $\zeta^{(n)}_0$ &0.701 (14)& 1.29 (3)&  1.77 (4)& 2.17 (7)& 2.53 (9) \\

6926: \hline

6927: $\zeta^{(n)}_0$ & 0.709 (13) &1.27 (2)& 1.67 (4) & 1.93 (9) & 2.08 (18)\\

6928: \hline

6929: \end{tabular}

6930: \label{table:gotoh}

6931: \caption{Measured values of

6932: the longitudinal (first raw) and transverse (second raw)

6933:  scaling exponents

6934: at $Re_{\lambda}=460$ taken from \cite{got02}. One should note that

6935: the scaling range displayed by the scaling plots in \cite{got02} are

6936: relatively short, indicating that finite Re effects may still

6937: be rather important}

6938: \end{table}

6939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6940: \subsection{Anisotropies in decaying turbulence}

6941: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6942: Decaying turbulence has attracted the attention of various communities

6943: and is often considered in experimental, numerical and theoretical

6944: investigations \cite{bat53,fri95,my75}. It is in fact quite common

6945: that even experiments aimed at studying stationary properties of

6946: turbulence involve processes of decay. Important examples are provided

6947: by a turbulent flow behind a grid (see \cite{skr00} and references therein)

6948: or the turbulent flow created

6949: at the sudden stop of a grid periodically oscillating within a bounded

6950: box \cite{des94}.  In the former case, turbulence is slowly decaying

6951: going farther and farther away from the grid and its characteristic

6952: scale becomes larger and larger (see \cite{skr00} for a thorough

6953: experimental investigation). Whenever there is sufficient separation

6954: between the grid-size $L_{in}$ and the scale of the tunnel or the tank

6955: $L_{0} \gg L_{in}$, a series of interesting phenomenological

6956: predictions can be derived.  For example, the decay of the two-point

6957: velocity correlation function, for both isotropic and anisotropic

6958: flows, can be obtained under the so-called self-preservation

6959: hypothesis (see \cite{my75} chapter XVI). That posits the existence of

6960: rescaling functions allowing to relate correlation functions at

6961: different spatial and temporal scales. By inserting the

6962: rescaling function

6963: into the equations of motion, asymptotic results can be obtained both

6964: for the final viscosity-dominated regime and for the intermediate

6965: asymptotic when nonlinear effects still play an important role.

6966: 

6967: Here, we review some recent attempts to investigate the decay of

6968: three-dimensional homogeneous and anisotropic turbulence by direct

6969: numerical simulations of the Navier-Stokes equations in a periodic box

6970: \cite{bif03c} for both short and large times.  The initial

6971: conditions are taken from the stationary ensemble of the Random

6972: Kolmogorov Flow discussed in the previous subsection.  Here the

6973: correlation length-scale of the initial velocity field $L_{in}$ is of

6974: the order of the size of the box $L_{0}\approx L_{in}$.

6975: 

6976:  On the one hand, one is interested  in the

6977: long time decay regime where the typical interesting questions are: (i) how

6978: do global quantities, such as single-point velocity and vorticity

6979: correlations, decay? (ii) What is the effect of the outer boundary on

6980: the decay laws~?  (iii) Do those quantities keep track of the initial

6981: anisotropy~? (iv) As for the statistics of velocity differences within

6982: the inertial range of scales, is there a recovery of isotropy at large

6983: times~? (v) If so, do strong fluctuations get isotropic at a

6984: faster/slower rate with respect to those of average intensity~? (vi)

6985: Do anisotropic -and isotropic- fluctuations decay self-similarly~?

6986: (vii)If not, do strong fluctuations decay slower or faster than

6987: typical ones~? \

6988: On the other hand, the

6989: interest in the early stages of the decay is led by a hope of

6990: establishing a link between the small-scale velocity statistics in

6991: this phase and in forced turbulence. If such links existed, they would

6992: shed additional light on the universality of forced

6993: turbulence. 

6994: As turbulence decays, the effective Re

6995:  decreases, while the viscous characteristic scale and time

6996: increase.  In \cite{bif03c} an offline analysis at fixed

6997: multiples $\{0,1,10,10^{2},10^{3},10^4,10^5,10^6\}\,\tau_0$ of the

6998: initial large-scale eddy turnover time $\tau_0 = L_{0}/u_{rms}^{t=0}$

6999: was performed. \\ A first hint on the restoration of isotropy at large

7000: times can be extracted from the analysis of single point quantities as

7001: $$ E_{il} = {\overline{u_i(\Bx, t)u_l(\Bx, t)}},\quad

7002: \Omega_{il} = {\overline{\omega_i(\Bx, t) \omega_l(\Bx, t)}}.  $$

7003: Here with $\overline{\cdots}$ we denote the average over spatial

7004: coordinates only, whereas $\la \cdots \ra$  indicates the

7005: average over both initial conditions and space. The symmetric

7006: matrices $E_{il}(t)$ and $\Omega_{il}(t)$ can be diagonalized at

7007: each time-step and the eigenvalues $E_1(t),E_2(t),E_3(t)$ and

7008: $\Omega_1(t),\Omega_2(t),\Omega_3(t)$ can be extracted.  The typical

7009: decay of $E_{i}(t)$ and $\Omega_{i}(t)$ for $i=1,\dots,3$ is

7010: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.

7011: \begin{figure}[h] 

7012: %\epsfxsize=8.0truecm

7013: %\epsfysize=6.0 cm

7014: \epsfbox{DEC.fig2.eps}

7015: \vspace{4pt}

7016: \caption{Log-log plot of the eigenvalues of energy and vorticity matrices

7017: {\it vs.} time, expressed in $\tau_0$ unit.}

7018: \label{fig:2} 

7019: \end{figure} 

7020:  During the self-similar stage, $t\in

7021: [10,10^6]$, the energy eigenvalues fall off as $E_{\{1,2,3\}}\sim

7022: t^{-2}$, as expected for the decay in a bounded domain

7023: \cite{skr00,bor95}. The enstrophy eigenvalues,

7024: $\Omega_{\{1,2,3\}}$ decay as $t^{-12/5}$ as predicted from a

7025: simple dimensional argument \cite{bif03c}.

7026:   To  focus on the process of recovery of isotropy

7027: in terms of global quantities one may track the behavior of

7028:  two sets of observables

7029: $$ \Delta_{il} E(t) =\frac{\la E_i(t)-E_l(t) \ra}{\la E_i(t) +

7030: E_l(t)}

7031: \ra\,,\quad

7032: \Delta_{il} {\Omega}(t) = \frac{ \la \Omega_i(t)-\Omega_l(t) \ra}

7033: {\la \Omega_i(t)  + \Omega_l(t)\ra } \,, $$

7034: which vanish for isotropic statistics.  Their rate of decay is therefore

7035: a direct measurement of the return to isotropy. The energy matrix $E_{il}$

7036: is particularly sensitive to the large scales while small-scale

7037: fluctuations are sampled by $\Omega_{il}$.  As  seen from

7038: Fig.~\ref{fig:3},

7039: \begin{figure}[h] 

7040: %\epsfxsize=8.0truecm

7041: %\epsfysize=6.0 cm

7042: \epsfbox{DEC.fig3.eps}

7043: \caption{Log-log plot of the anisotropy content at the large scales

7044: ($\Delta_{12}E(t)$, $\Delta_{13}E(t)$, top curves) and the small scales

7045: ($\Delta_{12}\Omega(t)$, $\Delta_{13}\Omega(t)$, bottom curves) as a

7046: function

7047: of time, expressed in $\tau_0$ unit. The large-scale (small-scale)

7048: anisotropy 

7049: content is defined as the mismatch between the eigenvalues of the

7050: single-point 

7051: velocity (vorticity) correlation.}

7052: \label{fig:3} 

7053: \end{figure}

7054:  both large and small scales begin to isotropize

7055: after roughly one eddy turnover time and become fully isotropic

7056: (within statistical fluctuations) after $100$ eddy turnover

7057: times. However, small scales show an overall degree of anisotropy much

7058: smaller than the large scales.

7059: 

7060: %---------------------------------------------------------

7061: %The observables which characterize the decay of small-scale velocity

7062: %fluctuations are the longitudinal structure functions

7063: %\be

7064: %S^{(n)}\lp\r,t\rp = \la\left[\lp \v\lp\x+ \r,t\rp-\v\lp\x,t\rp\rp

7065: %  \cdot\hat\r\right]^n \ra\,.

7066: %\label{eq:longitudinal}

7067: %\ee

7068: %  Another  method, equivalent to the SO(3) decomposition

7069: %of longitudinal structure functions,   to look at

7070: %the  anisotropic properties of the velocity field is to

7071: %focus  directly on   the PDF of the longitudinal velocity

7072: %differences. In this case, denoting by $\cP(\Delta,\r;t)$ the

7073: %probability that the longitudinal incremement $\dv \equiv

7074: %\lp\v(\r,t)-\v(0,t)

7075: %\rp \cdot \unitr$ be equal to $\Delta$, we may project $\cP(\Delta,\r;t)$

7076: %on

7077: %the SO(3) basis:

7078: %\be \cP(\Delta,\r;t) =\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-j}^{j}

7079: %\cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp Y_{jm}(\unitr).

7080: %\label{so3_pdf}

7081: %\ee

7082: %The projection $\cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp$ plays the role of an

7083: %``effective PDF'' for each single SO(3) sector. Indeed, the

7084: %projections of the longitudinal structure function on any sector

7085: %$(j,m)$ can be resphconstructed from the corresponding $\cP_{jm}\lp

7086: %r,\Delta;t\rp$ by averaging over all possible $\Delta$'s:

7087: %\be

7088: %S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t\rp =

7089: %\int d\Delta \Delta^n \cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp\,.

7090: %\label{pdf_jm}

7091: %\ee

7092: %That establishes the equivalence between the decompositions

7093: %(\ref{so3_sf}) and (\ref{so3_pdf}).\\ The main points broached here

7094: %are about the long-time properties of the SO(3) projections,

7095: %$S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t\rp$.

7096: Concerning small scales properties, in \cite{bif03c}

7097: a  simple anisotropic generalization of the

7098: self-preservation hypothesis (see, e.g.~Ref.~\cite{fri95}) was proposed:

7099: $$

7100:  S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t\rp =

7101: V^{(n)}_{jm}\lp t \rp f^{(n)}_{jm} \lp r/L_{jm}(t) \rp .

7102: $$

7103: Here  with  $V^{(n)}_{jm}\lp t \rp$ we take explicitly into account

7104: the fact that large-scale velocity  properties may depend in a nontrivial

7105: way

7106: on both $(j,m)$ and the order $n$.  Furthermore, $L_{jm}(t)$ accounts

7107: for the possibility that the characteristic length scale depend on the

7108: SO(3) sector.  In analogy with the observations made in the

7109: stationary case \cite{gar98,ara98,ara99,kur00,bif01a,bif02,she02,bif01}

7110: a scaling law  was postulated:

7111: \be S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp \sim a^{(n)}_{jm}(t) \lp \frac{r}

7112: {L_{jm}(t)}\rp^{\zeta_{j}^{(n)}}\,.

7113: \label{anyt}

7114: \ee

7115: The time behavior is encoded in both the decay of the overall

7116: intensity, accounted by the prefactors $a^{(n)}_{jm}(t)$, and the

7117: variation of the integral scales $L_{jm}(t)$. The representation

7118: Eq.~(\ref{anyt}) is the simplest one fitting the initial time statistics

7119: for $t=0$ and agreeing with the evolution given by the self

7120: preservation hypothesis in the isotropic case. The power law behavior

7121: for $f^{(n)}_{jm} \lp r/L_{jm}(t) \rp$ can be expected only in a

7122: time-dependent inertial range of scales $ \eta(t) \ll r \ll L(t)$.  As

7123: for the exponents appearing in (\ref{anyt}), their values are

7124: expectedly the same as in the stationary case.  Concerning the time

7125: evolution, it seems difficult to disentangle the dependence due to the

7126: decay of $a^{(n)}_{jm}(t)$ from the one due to the growth of the

7127: integral scale $L_{jm}(t)$.  The existence of a running reference

7128: scale, $L_{jm}(t)$ introduces some non-trivial relations between the

7129: spatial anomalous scaling and the decaying time properties, and those

7130: relations might be subject to experimental verification.  In the case

7131: discussed in \cite{bif03c}, the fact that the initial condition

7132: has a characteristic length-scale comparable with the box size,

7133: simplifies the matter.  Indeed we expect that $L_{jm}(t) \approx

7134: L_{0}$, and the decay is due only to the fall-off of

7135:  $a^{(n)}_{jm}(t)$.  An obvious shortcoming is that the width

7136: of the inertial range $L_{0}/\eta(t)$ shrinks monotonically in time,

7137: thereby limiting the possibility of precise quantitative statements.

7138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7139: \subsubsection{Long time decay}

7140: A quantitative way to define the temporal rate of recovery of isotropy

7141: at a fixed scale in the inertial range is given by the

7142: dimensionless ratio:

7143: \be \Pi^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp \equiv

7144: \frac{S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp}{S^{(n)}_{0,0}\lp r,t \rp} \sim

7145: t^{-\Xi_{j}^{(n)}}\,.

7146: \label{ratio_n}

7147: \ee

7148: In Fig.~\ref{fig:9},

7149: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7150: \begin{figure}[h] 

7151: %\epsfxsize=8.0truecm

7152: %\epsfysize=6.0 cm

7153: \epsfbox{DEC.fig9.eps}

7154: \caption{Hierarchical organization of anisotropic fluctuations at long

7155: times. Log-log plot of the anisotropic projections normalized by the

7156: corresponding isotropic projection (see text), at two fixed scales $r=80$

7157: and

7158: $r=40$ (inset) for $n=2, 4, 6$ in the anisotropic sector $j=4,m=0$.

7159: Symbols read as follows\,: $\Pi^{(2)}_{40}$ (full box);

7160: $\Pi^{(4)}_{40}$ (star);

7161:  $\Pi^{(6)}_{40}$ (empty box). The straight line

7162: is  $t^{-\Xi}$ with $\Xi \sim 0.3$.

7163:  Same symbols in the inset.}

7164: \label{fig:9} 

7165: \end{figure}

7166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7167:  we  plot  $\Pi^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp$ at $r=80$

7168: for structure functions of order $n=2,4,6$ and for the most intense

7169: anisotropic sector, $(j,m)=(4,0)$.  All anisotropic sectors,

7170: for all measured structure functions, decay faster than the isotropic

7171: one. The measured slope in the decay is about $\Xi_j^{(n)} \sim 0.3$

7172: for all $n$, within the statistical errors.

7173: Note that these results agree with the simple picture that the

7174: time-dependence in (\ref{anyt}) is entirely carried by the prefactors

7175: $a_{jm}^{(n)}(t)$ and the value of the integral scales $L_{jm}(t)$ is

7176: saturated at the size of the box. Indeed, by assuming that large-scale

7177: fluctuations are almost Gaussian we have that the leading

7178: time-dependence of $a_{jm}^{(2n)}$ is given by $a_{jm}^{(2)}

7179: a_{00}^{(2n-2)}$.  For the isotropic sector, $a_{00}^{(2n)} \sim

7180: (a_{00}^{(2)})^n$, and plugging that in (\ref{ratio_n}), one get:

7181: $\Pi^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp \sim a^{(2)}_{jm}(t)/a^{(2)}_{00}(t) \sim

7182: t^{-\Xi}$ with $\Xi \sim 0.3 (\pm 0.1)$ independent of $n$. The

7183: quality of data is insufficient to detect possible residual effects

7184: due to $L_{jm}(t)$, which would make $\Xi_j^{(n)}$ depend on $n$ and

7185: $j$ because of spatial intermittency.\\

7186: 

7187:  Let us denote with $\cP(\Delta,\r;t)$ the probability to observe a

7188:  given longitudinal fluctuation, $\delta u_{\ell}(\B r,t)=\Delta$

7189:  in the direction $\r$ at a given time,

7190:  $t$. For any given fixed value $\Delta$ and for any given time, $t$,

7191:  we can project $\cP(\Delta,\r;t)$ on the SO(3) basis functions:

7192: \be 

7193: \cP(\Delta,\r;t) =  \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-j}^{j}

7194: \cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp Y_{jm}(\unitr),

7195: \label{so3_pdf} 

7196: \ee 

7197: where now the projection, $\cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp$ play the role

7198: of an {\it effective PDF} for each  SO(3) sector. The projection

7199: of any longitudinal structure function,

7200: $ S^{(n)}(\r,t) $ on any sector, $(j,m)$ can be reconstructed from the

7201: corresponding  

7202: projection of the  PDF on the same sector,

7203:  $\cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp$, by  averaging over all possible $\Delta$:

7204: $$ 

7205: S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t\rp = \int d\Delta \Delta^n \cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp

7206: $$

7207: which establish  the link between decomposition (\ref{eq:fundamental}) and

7208: (\ref{so3_pdf}).\\ 

7209: 

7210: The interesting fact that the

7211: decay properties of the anisotropic sectors are almost independent of

7212: $n$ indicates that a non-trivial time

7213: dependence in the shape of the PDF's $\cP_{jm}\lp r ,\Delta;t\rp$ for

7214: $j>0$ must be expected. The most accurate way to probe the rescaling

7215: properties of $\cP_{jm}\lp r,\Delta;t\rp$ in time is to compute the

7216: generalized flatness:

7217: $$

7218: K_{jm}^{(n)}(r,t)\equiv \frac{S^{(n)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp}{\lp

7219: S^{(2)}_{jm}\lp r,t \rp \rp^{\frac{n}{2}}} \sim t^{\alpha_{j}^{(n)}}

7220: $$

7221: Were the PDF projection in the $(j,m)$ sector self-similar for $t \gg

7222: \tau_0$, then $K_{jm}^{(n)}(r,t)$ would tend to constant values. This

7223: is not the case for anisotropic fluctuations, as it is shown in

7224: Fig. (\ref{fig:10}).

7225: \begin{figure}[h] 

7226: %\epsfxsize=7.9truecm

7227: %\epsfysize=6.0 cm

7228: \epsfbox{DEC.fig10.eps}

7229: \caption{Log-log plot of the generalized flatness, $K_{jm}^{(n)}(r,t)$

7230: of order $n=4,6$ for both the isotropic (two bottom curves), and

7231: the anisotropic sector $(j=4,m=0)$ (two top curves) at $r=80$, and as

7232: a function of time. In the inset we plot the same quantities, in the same

7233: order, at a different inertial range scale, $r=40$.}

7234: \label{fig:10} 

7235: \end{figure} 

7236: The curves $K_{jm}^{(n)}(r,t)$ are collected for

7237: two fixed inertial range separations, $r=80$ and $r=40$ (inset), for

7238: two different orders, $n=4,6$ and for both the isotropic and one of

7239: the most intense anisotropic sectors $(j=4,m=0)$ . The isotropic

7240: flatness tends toward a constant value for large $t$. Conversely, its

7241: anisotropic counterparts are monotonically increasing with $t$,

7242: indicating a tendency for the anisotropic fluctuations to become more

7243: and more intermittent as time elapses. Also the behavior in

7244: Fig.~\ref{fig:10} is in qualitative agreement with the observation

7245: previously made that all the time dependence can be accounted for  by the

7246: prefactors $a_{jm}^{(n)}(t)$. Indeed, assuming that the length scales

7247: $L_{jm}(t)$ have saturated and that the large scale PDF is close to

7248: Gaussian, it is easy to work out the prediction $K_{jm}^{(n)}(r,t)

7249: \sim t^{-\Xi(1-n/2)}$, i.e.  $\alpha_{j}^{(n)}=\Xi(n/2-1)$.

7250: %------------------------------------------------------------------

7251: %-------------------------------------------------------------

7252:  We conclude this

7253: section by a brief summary of the results.  It was found that

7254: isotropic fluctuations persist longer than anisotropic ones,

7255: i.e. there is a time-recovery, albeit slower than predicted by dimensional

7256: arguments, of isotropy during the decay process.  It was  also found

7257: that isotropic fluctuations decay in an almost self-similar way while

7258: the anisotropic ones become more and more intermittent. Qualitatively,

7259: velocity configurations get more isotropic but anisotropic

7260: fluctuations become, in relative terms, more ``spiky'' than the

7261: isotropic ones as time elapses.

7262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7263: \subsubsection{Short-time decay}

7264: \label{shorttimes}

7265: It is interesting to notice that it is possible to relate the

7266: small-scale universal properties of forced turbulent statistics to

7267: those of short-time decay for an ensemble of initial configurations

7268: \cite{bif03c}. As already remarked, one cannot expect an

7269: universal behavior for all statistical observables, as the very

7270: existence of anomalous scaling is the signature of the memory of the

7271: boundaries and/or the external forcing throughout all the scales.

7272: Indeed, the main message we want to convey here is that only the

7273: scaling exponents of both isotropic and anisotropic small-scale

7274: fluctuations are universal, at least for forcing concentrated at large

7275: scales.  The prefactors are not expected to be so.  There is therefore

7276: no reason to expect that quantities such as the skewness, the kurtosis

7277: and in fact the whole PDF of velocity increments or gradients be

7278: universal. \\ 

7279: This is the same situation that we discussed in great details in previous

7280: sections

7281:  for the passive transport

7282: of scalar and vector fields.

7283:  However, carrying over the analytical

7284: knowledge developed for linear hydrodynamic problems involve some

7285: nontrivial, yet missing, steps. For the Navier-Stokes dynamics, linear

7286: equations of motion appear when we consider

7287: the whole set of correlation functions as discussed  in

7288: Sect.~\ref{sec:hierachy}.

7289:  These equations

7290: can be rewritten in a  schematic form:

7291: \be

7292: \partial_t C^{(n)} = \Gamma^{(n+1)}C^{(n+1)} +\nu D^{(n)} C^{(n)} + F^{(n)},

7293: \label{compact}

7294: \ee

7295: where $\Gamma^{(n+1)}$ is the integro-differential linear operator

7296: coming from the inertial and pressure terms,  $C^{(n)}$ is a

7297: shorthand notation for a generic $(n)$-th order correlator and

7298:   $D^{(n)}$ is the linear

7299: operator describing dissipative effects. Finally, $F^{(n)}$ is the

7300: correlator involving increments of the large-scale forcing $\f$ and of

7301: the velocity field.  The balance between inertial and injection

7302: terms cannot lead to anomalous scaling.  A natural possibility is that

7303: a mechanism similar to the one identified in linear transport problems

7304: be at work in the Navier-Stokes case as well. The anomalous

7305: contributions to the correlators would then be associated with

7306: statistically stationary solutions of the unforced equations

7307: (\ref{compact}). The scaling exponents would {\it a fortiori} be

7308: independent of the forcing and thus universal. As for the prefactors,

7309: the anomalous scaling exponents are positive and thus the anomalous

7310: contributions grow at infinity. They should then be matched at the

7311: large scales with the contributions coming from the forcing to ensure

7312: that the resulting combination vanish at infinity, as required for

7313: correlation functions. The  aim here is not to prove the previous

7314: points but rather to test whether they fail: the

7315: Navier-Stokes equations, being integro-differential and  non-local,

7316:  might directly couple inertial and injection scales and

7317: spoil the argument. This effect might be particularly relevant for

7318: anisotropic fluctuations where infrared divergences may appear in the

7319: pressure integrals (see Sect.~\ref{chap:linearP}).

7320: In order to investigate the previous point, we performed two sets of

7321: numerical experiments in decay.

7322: 

7323:  The first set, A, is of the same kind

7324: as in the previous section, i.e. we integrated the unforced

7325: Navier-Stokes equations

7326: with initial conditions picked from an ensemble obtained from a forced

7327: anisotropic stationary run.  Statistical observables are measured as

7328: an {\it ensemble} average over the different initial conditions.

7329:  The ensemble at the initial time of

7330: the decay process therefore coincides with  the stationary

7331: state in forced runs. If correlation functions are indeed dominated

7332: at small scales by statistically stationary solutions of the unforced

7333: equations then the field should not decay. Specifically, the field

7334: should not vary for times smaller than the large-scale eddy turnover

7335: time $\tau_0$. Those are the times when the effects

7336: of the forcing terms start to be felt. Note that this should hold

7337: at all scales, including the small ones whose turnover times are much

7338: faster than $\tau_0$.

7339: 

7340: The second set of numerical simulations (set B) takes the same initial

7341: conditions but for the random scrambling of the phases\,:

7342: $\Bu_i(\k)

7343: \rightarrow P_{il}(\k)  \B u_l(\k) \exp(i \theta_l(\k)) $, with

7344: $\theta_l(\k)$ i.i.d. random variables.  In this way, the spectrum and

7345: its scaling exponent are preserved but the wrong organization of the

7346: phases is expected to spoil the statistical stationarity of the

7347: initial ensemble. As a consequence, two different decays are expected

7348: for the two sets of initial conditions.  In particular, contrary to

7349: set A, set B should vary at small scales on times of the order of the

7350: eddy turnover times $\tau_r \sim r^{2/3}$.  This is exactly what has

7351: been found in the numerical simulations for both isotopic and

7352: anisotropic statistics as can be seen for the anisotropic case in

7353: Fig.~\ref{fig:12},

7354: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7355: \begin{figure}[h] 

7356: %\epsfxsize=8.3truecm

7357: %\epsfysize=6.0 cm

7358: \epsfbox{DEC.fig12.eps}

7359: \caption{

7360: Top: Temporal decay of the second-order anisotropic structure

7361: function $S^{(2)}_{40}(r,t)$, rescaled by its value at $t=0$.

7362: Here $r=30$, inside the inertial

7363: range. The two curves refer to the time evolution of the structure

7364: function starting from the forced-stationary velocity

7365: fields (squares, set A) and from the randomly dephased velocity

7366: fields (circles, set B). Time is normalized by the integral eddy turnover

7367: time.

7368: Notice that for set B we observe changes on a time

7369: scale faster than the integral eddy turnover time. That is to be

7370: contrasted with the case A, where structure functions are strictly constant

7371: in time up to an integral eddy turnover

7372: time. Bottom: The same curves but for the fourth-order structure function.}

7373: \label{fig:12} 

7374: \end{figure} 

7375: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7376:  where the temporal behavior of

7377: longitudinal structure functions of order 2 and 4 is shown. The

7378: scaling exponents of the contributions responsible for the observed behavior

7379: at

7380: small scales are thus forcing independent.\\

7381: To conclude, the data presented here support the conclusion that

7382: nonlocal effects peculiar to the Navier-Stokes dynamics do not spoil

7383: arguments on universality based on analogies with passive turbulent

7384: transport. The picture of the anomalous contributions to the

7385: correlation functions having universal scaling exponents and

7386: non-universal prefactors follows.

7387: 

7388: \newpage

7389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7390: %%

7391: %

7392: % Chapter 9 - Concluding Discussion

7393: %

7394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7395: %%

7396: 

7397: \section{Concluding Discussion, }

7398: \label{chap:conclusions}

7399: 

7400: In this review we presented a mathematical framework in which

7401: anisotropy in turbulence can be studied, and we have tested its

7402: utility in the context of experimental analysis, numerical simulations

7403: and analytical models. The basic idea is to express the various

7404: statistical quantities of turbulence (e.g., structure functions,

7405: correlation functions) in terms of their projections on the different

7406: sectors of the SO($3$) group.

7407: 

7408: The utility of the SO($3$) decomposition should be assessed in two

7409: main aspects. The first aspect is its functionality as a tool for

7410: characterizing anisotropy, whereas the second, and deeper aspect, is its

7411: physical relevance and the theoretical and analytical advantages that

7412: are gained by using it.

7413: 

7414: As a tool for describing anisotropy, the SO($3$) decomposition is

7415: probably the most natural and general method. It is of \emph{high

7416: resolution} - it subdivides the observed anisotropy into different

7417: sectors - the $(j,m)$ sectors. The weights of the various sectors

7418: give us a fine resolution of the anisotropy structure. Instead of

7419: having one measure for anisotropy (e.g., the overall percentage of

7420: anisotropy), we have an infinite set of numbers that compose a

7421: detailed profile of the anisotropy structure.

7422: 

7423: 

7424: The SO($3$) decomposition is also very \emph{general}. It is

7425: applicable to any physical observable that has a well-defined

7426: transformation under rotations. These can be, for example, correlation

7427: functions, structure functions or Green's functions (response

7428: functions). The observables themselves may depend on any number of

7429: space coordinates or even be space independent. They may also be

7430: scalars, vectors or tensors. Any such quantity can be presented as

7431: a sum of parts that belong to the different $(j,m)$ sectors of the

7432: rotation group. Additionally, since the SO($3$) decomposition is

7433: invariant to isotropic operations, it is invariant to the most common

7434: operations that we use. For example, to obtain the $n$th order

7435: longitudinal structure function we can take the full $n$th order

7436: structure function (which is a tensor) and contract it with $n$ unit

7437: vectors in the direction of the separation distance. Since this

7438: operation is linear and isotropic, it will preserve the $(j,m)$

7439: sectors of the full structure function. That is, the $(j,m)$ sector

7440: of the full structure function will be transformed into the same

7441: $(j,m)$ sector of the longitudinal structure functions. The same

7442: thing happens for operations such as differentiations (for example

7443: when we look at moments of the gradient fields), space averaging, time

7444: averaging, coordinate fusion etc... From the pure theoretical point of view

7445: the  first and most obvious advantage of using the

7446: SO($3$) decomposition is its elegance and the overwhelming

7447: simplification that it offers in analytical calculations.

7448: The SO($3$) decomposition may also have a deeper physical

7449: justification if it produces universal quantities such as distinct

7450: scaling behavior in the anisotropic sectors. There are several

7451: different evidences that suggest that this is indeed the

7452: case. Experimental results clearly show that a better scaling is

7453: achieved if we take higher $j$ components into account.

7454: Additionally, different experimental setups

7455: seem to lead to the same numerical values of the anisotropic exponent.

7456:  This is

7457:  a strong support for the hypothesis that the

7458: anisotropic sectors of the structure functions have  universal

7459: exponents. 

7460: Another support for the idea that the SO($3$) decomposition exposes

7461: universal quantities, comes from numerical simulations.

7462: In DNS, the SO($3$) decomposition

7463: can be performed directly (since the velocity field is accessible in

7464: every point in space and time) which makes the results much less

7465: ambiguous. We clearly see that even in the very moderate Reynolds

7466: numbers of the simulations, a scaling behavior is detected once we use

7467: the SO($3$) decomposition. In some cases, without the SO($3$)

7468: decomposition no scaling behavior is seen at all. Furthermore, the

7469: resulting exponents in the isotropic sector are remarkably similar to

7470: the experimental values which are measured at very high Reynolds

7471: numbers. This is a strong indication that at least the isotropic

7472: sector has a universal profile, and therefore by disentangling it from

7473: the anisotropic sectors we get universal results.  In other sectors of

7474: the rotation group, the scaling behavior is not as good, and in some

7475: sectors there is no scaling at all. However, in those sectors where

7476: scaling was detected, the scaling exponents seem to agree with the

7477: theoretical and experimental predictions.

7478:  Sectors with same $j$ and different $m$s had

7479: the same scaling exponents (when scale-invariance was observed). And

7480: finally, all exponents increased as a function of $n$ (order of the

7481: structure-function) as well as $j$. It is still not clear whether

7482: the ``bad'', non scale-invariant behavior that was detected in some

7483: sectors, is a result of the poor Reynolds numbers of the simulations,

7484: or is a genuine effect that tells us that the foliation picture is

7485: incomplete. A further research with higher resolution is probably

7486: needed to settle this issue.

7487: % From the theoretical point of view, there is

7488: %little hope that the

7489: %universality of the anisotropic sectors in Navier-Stokes turbulence

7490: %stems from exact foliation. Exact foliation occurs in

7491: %linear  models. 

7492: In  the Navier-Stokes case

7493: one can prove a  ``weak foliation''. Weak

7494: foliation is an approximate foliation that happens in the case of weak

7495: anisotropy, when we linearize the anisotropic part of the theory

7496: around its isotropic part.

7497: In such case, the linearized anisotropic part of the

7498: theory is subject to a linear and isotropic equation whose kernel

7499: contains the isotropic solution, and hence foliation occurs. This is a

7500: very robust approximation since it holds for virtually any nonlinear

7501: and isotropic theory in the case of weak anisotropy.

7502:  Additionally, we know that as the Reynolds number

7503: increases, the statistics becomes more and more isotropic and

7504: therefore the linear approximation becomes better and better.

7505: 

7506: The SO($3$) decomposition has a physical relevance also in the

7507: presence of strong anisotropy. If we merely consider the direct

7508: application of the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations on the

7509: various structure functions, we get a family of linear and isotropic

7510: constraints. These constraints are valid independently of the

7511: amount of anisotropy in the system. Their linearity and isotropy lead

7512: to foliation and hence one can discuss them in every sector

7513: independently. In some sectors, they are sufficient to determine the

7514: full solution, whereas in others they can reveal some general

7515: properties of the solution. For example, the isotropic sector of the

7516: third-order structure function is completely determined by the

7517: different constraints, and is given by the well-known 4/5 law of

7518: Kolmogorov. Notice that because of foliation, this is true also in the

7519: presence of anisotropy, which means that the 4/5 law holds also in an

7520: anisotropic turbulence. In the $j=2$ sectors, on the other hand,

7521: the third-order structure-function is given by two undetermined scalar

7522: functions, whereas in the $j=4,6,\ldots$ it is given by

7523: three. Another example is the $j=1$ sectors in the second-order

7524: correlation function, which

7525:  must all vanish. 

7526: 

7527: To conclude, the framework of the SO($3$) decomposition provides an

7528: elegant and efficient way to describe anisotropy in turbulence. It

7529: also greatly simplifies many analytical calculations that involve

7530: anisotropic quantities, mainly through the mechanism of

7531: foliation. This mechanism is present in simplified models of

7532: turbulence, and may also be valid approximately in Navier-Stokes

7533: turbulence. It predicts that the anisotropic sectors of the statistics

7534: have universal properties such as scaling exponents. Further research

7535: is needed to accurately measure these anisotropic exponents in

7536: experiments as well as in numerical simulations.

7537: 

7538: A quantitative computation of the anisotropic exponents in Navier-Stokes

7539: turbulence from first principles may very well be an illusive goal.

7540: Nevertheless, we believe that the general principles of the physics

7541: behind these exponents and anisotropy in general can be

7542: understood.

7543: % The best tool for that was, and still is, the theoretical

7544: %study of simplified models.

7545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7546: \section{Acknowledgements}

7547: We benefited from many discussion with many colleagues, without which we

7548: could not reach the picture presented in this review. We thank in particular

7549: Itai Arad, Roberto Benzi, Guido Boffetta, Carlo Casciola, Antonio Celani,

7550: Isabelle Daumont, Siegfried Grossmann, Boris Jacob, Susan

7551: Kurien, Alessandra  Lanotte,  Detlef Lohse, Victor S. Lvov, Irene

7552: Mazzitelli,

7553: Evgeny Podivilov, K.R. Sreenivasan, Federico Toschi and Massimo Vergassola.

7554: Much

7555: of the work reviewed here was

7556: supported in part by the European Commission through a TMR grant (No.

7557: HPRN-CT 2000-00162),

7558:  the Italian Ministry of Education (MURST), the Instituto Nazionale di

7559: Fisica

7560: della Materia,  the German Israeli

7561: Foundation, the Minerva

7562: Foundation, Munich, Germany, the Israel Science Foundation, and the US

7563: Israel Bi-National

7564: Science Foundation.

7565: \appendix

7566: \section{The General Form of the 2nd Rank Tensor}

7567: \label{sec:general-form}

7568: In this appendix we discuss the general structure of the second rank

7569: correlation functions

7570: \begin{equation}

7571: F^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r})\equiv\langle u^{\alpha }({\bf x}+{\bf r})u^{\beta

7572: }({\bf 

7573: x})\rangle \ ,  \label{cf}

7574: \end{equation}

7575: In (\ref{cf}) {\em homogeneity} of the flow is assumed, but not isotropy.

7576: Note that this object is more general than the structure function $S^{\alpha

7577: \beta }$ in being nonsymmetric in the indices, and having no definite

7578: parity.  We wish to find the basis functions $B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(

7579: {\bf \hat{r}})$, with which we can represent $F^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r})$ in

7580: the form: 

7581: \begin{equation}

7582: F^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r})=\sum_{q,jm}a_{q,jm}(r)B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta

7583: }({\bf

7584: \hat{r}})  \label{trial-tensor}

7585: \end{equation}

7586: and derive some constraints among the functions $\ a_{q,jm}(r)$ that result

7587: from incompressibility. We shall see, that due to the isotropy of the

7588: incompressibility conditions, the constraints are among $a_{q,jm}(r)$ with

7589: the {\em same} $j,m$ only.

7590: 

7591: We begin by analyzing the incompressibility condition: An incompressible

7592: flow with constant density is characterized by the relation:

7593: $

7594: \partial _{\alpha }u^{\alpha }({\bf x},t)=0

7595: $

7596: as a result, one immediately gets the following constraints on $F^{\alpha

7597: \beta }({\bf r})$: 

7598: $$

7599: \partial _{\alpha }F^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r}) =0, \qquad

7600: \partial _{\beta }F^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r}) =0.

7601: $$

7602: Plugging the trial tensor (\ref{trial-tensor}) into the last two equations

7603: we obtain 2 equations connecting the different $a_{q,jm}$:

7604: \be

7605: \partial _{\alpha }\sum_{q,jm}a_{q,jm}(r)B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }({\bf

7606: \hat{r}}

7607: ) =0  \label{incomp-1} \qquad

7608: \partial _{\beta }\sum_{q,jm}a_{q,jm}(r)B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }({\bf

7609: \hat{r}})

7610: =0  

7611: \ee

7612: We first notice that the differentiation action is isotropic. As a result,

7613: if $T^{\alpha \beta }\left( {\bf r}\right) $ is some arbitrary tensor with a

7614: definite $j,m$ transformation properties, then the tensor $\partial _{\alpha

7615: }T^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r})$ will have {\em the same} $j,m$ transformation

7616: properties. Components with different $j,m$ are linearly independent.

7617: Therefore equations (\ref{incomp-1}) should hold for each $j,m$ separately.

7618: 

7619: Next, we observe that (\ref{incomp-1}) are invariant under the

7620: transformation $

7621: F^{\alpha \beta }\longrightarrow F^{\beta \alpha }$. As a result, the

7622: symmetric and anti-symmetric parts of $F^{\alpha \beta }$ should satisfy

7623: (\ref{incomp-1}) independently. To see that, let us write $F^{\alpha \beta

7624: }$

7625: as a sum of a symmetric term and an anti-symmetric term: $F^{\alpha \beta

7626: }=F_{S}^{\alpha \beta }+F_{A}^{\alpha \beta }$, we then get:

7627: \begin{eqnarray*}

7628: \partial _{\alpha }F^{\alpha \beta } &=&\partial _{\alpha }F_{S}^{\alpha

7629: \beta }+\partial _{\alpha }F_{A}^{\alpha \beta }=\partial _{\alpha

7630: }F_{S}^{\beta \alpha }-\partial _{\alpha }F_{A}^{\beta \alpha }=0 \\

7631: \partial _{\beta }F^{\alpha \beta } &=&\partial _{\beta }F_{S}^{\alpha \beta

7632: }+\partial _{\beta }F_{A}^{\alpha \beta }=0

7633: \end{eqnarray*}

7634: from which we conclude:$

7635: \partial _{\alpha }F_{S}^{\alpha \beta }=\partial _{\alpha }F_{A}^{\alpha

7636: \beta }=0 .

7637: $

7638: Finally, (\ref{incomp-1}) is invariant under the transformation $F^{\alpha

7639: \beta }({\bf r)}\longrightarrow F^{\alpha \beta }(-{\bf r)}$ and as a result

7640: the odd parity and the even parity parts of $F^{\alpha \beta }$ should

7641: fulfill (\ref{incomp-1}) independently. We conclude that a necessary and

7642: sufficient condition for (\ref{incomp-1}) to hold is that it holds

7643: separately for parts with definite $j,m$, definite symmetry in the $\alpha

7644: ,\beta $ indices and a definite parity in ${\bf r}$:

7645: \[

7646: \partial _{\alpha }\sum_{q}a_{q,jm}({ r})B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }({\bf

7647: \hat{r}})=0\mbox{ \

7648: \begin{tabular}{l}

7649: ~~{\small summation is over} \\

7650: ~~$B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }$ {\small with definite symmetries}

7651: \end{tabular}

7652: }

7653: \]

7654: where the summation is over $q$ such that $B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }$ has a

7655: definite indices symmetry and a definite parity.

7656: 

7657: 

7658: According to (\ref{eq:second-rank-tensors}) we can write these

7659: $B_{q,jm}^{\alpha \beta }$ as:

7660: \begin{enumerate}

7661: \item  $(-)^{j}$ parity, symmetric tensors:

7662: 

7663: 

7664: \begin{itemize}

7665: \item  $B_{1,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j}\delta ^{\alpha

7666: \beta }\Phi _{jm}(${\bf $r$}$)$,

7667: \item  $B_{7,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j}\left[ r^{\alpha

7668: }\partial ^{\beta }+r^{\beta }\partial ^{\alpha }\right] \Phi _{jm}(${\bf

7669: $r$

7670: }$)$,

7671: \item  $B_{9,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j-2}r^{\alpha

7672: }r^{\beta }\Phi _{jm}(${\bf $r$}$)$,

7673: \item  $B_{5,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j+2}\partial

7674: ^{\alpha }\partial ^{\beta }\Phi _{jm}(${\bf $r$}$)$.

7675: \end{itemize}

7676: \item  $(-)^{j}$ parity, anti-symmetric tensors:

7677: \begin{itemize}

7678: \item  $B_{3,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j}\left[ r^{\alpha

7679: }\partial ^{\beta }-r^{\beta }\partial ^{\alpha }\right] \Phi _{jm}(${\bf

7680: $r$

7681: }$)$.

7682: \end{itemize}

7683: \item  $(-)^{j+1}$ parity, symmetric tensors

7684: \begin{itemize}

7685: \item  $B_{8,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j-1}\left[

7686: r^{\alpha }\epsilon ^{\beta \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }+r^{\beta

7687: }\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }\right] \Phi _{jm}(${\bf

7688: $r$}$)$,

7689: \item  $B_{6,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j+1}\left[

7690: \epsilon ^{\beta \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }\partial ^{\alpha

7691: }+\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \nu }r_{\mu }\partial _{\nu }\partial ^{\beta }

7692: \right] \Phi _{jm}(${\bf $r$}$)$.

7693: \end{itemize}

7694: \item  $(-)^{j+1}$ parity, anti-symmetric tensors:

7695: \begin{itemize}

7696: \item  $B_{4,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j-1}\epsilon

7697: ^{\alpha \beta \mu }r_{\mu }\Phi _{jm}(${\bf $r$}$)$,

7698: \item  $B_{2,jm}^{\alpha \beta }(\hat{{\bf r}})\equiv r^{-j+1}\epsilon

7699: ^{\alpha \beta \mu }\partial _{\mu }\Phi _{jm}(${\bf $r$}$)$.

7700: \end{itemize}

7701: \end{enumerate}

7702: In order to differentiate these expressions we can use the following

7703: identities: 

7704: \begin{eqnarray*}

7705: r^{\alpha }\partial _{\alpha }r^{\zeta }Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}}) &=&\zeta

7706: r^{\zeta }Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}}) \ ,\\

7707: \partial ^{\alpha }\partial _{\alpha }r^{\zeta }Y_{jm}(\hat{{\bf r}}) &=&

7708: \left[ \zeta \left( \zeta +1\right) -j(j+1)\right] r^{\zeta -2}Y_{jm}(

7709: \hat{x})

7710: \end{eqnarray*}

7711: which give rise to:

7712: \begin{eqnarray*}

7713: r^{\alpha }\partial _{\alpha }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}) &=&j\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}) \

7714: .\\

7715: \partial ^{\alpha }\partial _{\alpha }\Phi _{jm}({\bf r}) &=&0 \ .

7716: \end{eqnarray*}

7717: From this point, it is a matter of simple (though somewhat lengthy)

7718: algebra to derive the differential constraints among $a_{q,jm}(r)$. The

7719: results are as follows:

7720: \begin{enumerate}

7721: \item  $q\in \{1,7,9,5\}$

7722: \begin{eqnarray}

7723: &a&_{1,jm}^{\prime }(r)-jr^{-1}a_{1,jm}+ja_{7,jm}^{\prime

7724: }-j^{2}r^{-1}a_{7,jm}+a_{9,jm}^{\prime }+2r^{-1}a_{9,jm} =0 \ ,

7725: \label{eq:in1795} \\

7726: &r&^{-1}a_{1,jm}+a_{7,jm}^{\prime }+3r^{-1}a_{7,jm}+\left( j-1\right)

7727: a_{5,jm}^{\prime }-\left( j^{2}-3j+2\right) r^{-1}a_{5,jm} =0  \ .

7728: \nonumber

7729: \end{eqnarray}

7730: \item  $q\in \{3\}$

7731: \begin{eqnarray}

7732: a_{3,jm}^{\prime }-jr^{-1}a_{3,jm} &=&0  \label{eq:in3} \ , \\

7733: a_{3,jm}^{\prime }+r^{-1}a_{3,jm} &=&0 \ . \nonumber

7734: \end{eqnarray}

7735:  These equations have no solutions other than: $a_{3,jm}(r)=0$.

7736: \item  $q\in \{8,6\}$

7737: \begin{equation}

7738: a_{8,jm}^{\prime }+3r^{-1}a_{8,jm}+(j-1)a_{6,jm}^{\prime }-\left(

7739: j^{2}-2j+1\right) r^{-1}a_{6,jm}=0  \ . \label{eq:in86}

7740: \end{equation}

7741: \item  $q\in \{4,2\}$

7742: \begin{equation}

7743: r^{-1}a_{4,jm}-a_{2,jm}^{\prime }+(j-1)r^{-1}a_{2,jm}=0 \ . \label{eq:in42}

7744: \end{equation}

7745: \end{enumerate}

7746: There are obviously more unknowns than equations, since we merely exploited

7747: the incompressibility conditions. Nevertheless, we believe

7748: that the missing equations that arise from the dynamical hierarchy of

7749: equations will preserve the distinction between $a_{q,jm}$ of different

7750: $j,m$

7751: (again, due to the isotropy of these equations).

7752: Note also, that the above analysis holds also for the second-order structure

7753: function 

7754: $$

7755: S^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r})\equiv \left\langle \left[ u^{\alpha }({\bf x}+

7756: {\bf r})-u^{\alpha }({\bf x})\right] \left[ u^{\beta }({\bf x}+{\bf r}

7757: )-u^{\beta }({\bf x})\right] \right\rangle .

7758: $$

7759: Only that in this case we should only consider the representations $

7760: q=1,7,9,5 $ for even $j$ and the representations $q=8,6$ for odd $j$. This

7761: follows from the fact that $S^{\alpha \beta }({\bf r})$ is symmetric with

7762: respect to its indices and it has an even parity in \ ${\bf r}$. Also, in

7763: that case, it is possible to go one step further by assuming a specific

7764: functional form for the $a_{q,jm}(r)$. We know that the $S^{\alpha \beta }(

7765: {\bf r})$ is expected scale in the inertial range, and we therefore may {\em

7766: assume}: 

7767: $$

7768: a_{q,jm}(r)\equiv c_{q,jm}r^{\zeta _{2}^{(j)}}.

7769: $$

7770: where $c_{q,jm}$ are just numerical constants. If we now substitute this

7771: definition into the equations (\ref{eq:in1795},\ref{eq:in86}), we get a set

7772: of linear equations among the $c_{q,jm}$. These relations can be easily

7773: solved and give us two possible tensors for even $j$ ($q=1,7,9,5$) and one

7774: tensor form for odd $j$ (from $q=8,6$). This kind of approach was taken in

7775: the two-probes experiment which is described in Sect.~\ref{chap:experiment}.

7776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7777: \section{Anisotropy in d-dimensions}

7778: \label{app:d-dim}

7779: 

7780: To deal with anisotropy in d-dimensions we need classify the

7781: irreducible representations of the group of all $d$-dimensional

7782: rotations, SO(d) \cite{62Ham}, and then to find a proper basis

7783: for these representations. The main linear space that we work in

7784: (the carrier space) is the space of constant tensors with $n$

7785: indices. This space possesses a natural representation of SO(d),

7786: given by the well known transformation of tensors under

7787: $d$-dimensional rotation.

7788: 

7789: The traditional method to find a basis for the irreducible

7790: representations of SO(d) in this space, is using the Young

7791: tableaux machinery on the subspace of traceless tensors

7792: \cite{62Ham,horvai}. It turns out that in the context of the present

7793: work, we do not need the explicit structure of these tensors.

7794: Instead, all that matters are some relations among them. A

7795: convenient way to derive these relations is to construct the

7796: basis tensors from functions on the unit $d$-dimensional sphere

7797: which belong to a specific irreducible representation. Here also,

7798: the explicit form of these functions in unimportant. All that

7799: matters for the  calculations is the action of the Laplacian

7800: operator on these functions.

7801: 

7802: Let us therefore consider first the space $\mathcal{S}_d$ of

7803: functions over the

7804:  unit

7805: $d$-dimensional sphere. The representation of SO(d) over this

7806: space is naturally defined by:

7807: \begin{equation}

7808:     \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal R} \Psi(\hat{u}) \equiv \Psi({\mathcal

7809: R}^{-1}\hat{u}) \  ,

7810:     \label{d-Rot}

7811: \end{equation}

7812: where $\Psi(\hat{u})$ is any function on the $d$-dimensional

7813: sphere, and ${\mathcal R}$ is a $d$-dimensional rotation.

7814: 

7815: ${\mathcal S}_d$ can be spanned by polynomials of the unit vector

7816: $\hat{u}$. Obviously (\ref{d-Rot}) does not change the degree of a

7817: polynomial, and therefore each irreducible representation in this

7818: space can be characterized by an integer $j=0,1,2,\ldots$,

7819: specifying the degree of the polynomials that span this

7820: representation. At this point, we cannot rule out the possibility

7821: that some other integers are needed to fully specify all

7822: irreducible representations in ${\mathcal S}_d$ and therefore we will

7823: need below another set of indices to complete the specification.

7824: 

7825: We can now choose a basis of polynomials $\{ Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat

7826: u) \}$ that span all the irreducible representations of SO(d)

7827: over ${\mathcal S}_d$. The index $\sigma$ counts all integers other

7828: than $j$ needed to fully specify all irreducible

7829: representations, and in addition, it labels the different

7830: functions within each irreducible representation.

7831: 

7832: Let us demonstrate this construction in two and three dimensions.

7833: In two dimensions $\sigma$ is unneeded since all the irreducible

7834: representation are one-dimensional and are spanned by

7835: $Y_j(\hat u)= e^{ij\phi}$ with $\phi$ being the angle

7836: between $\hat u$ and the the vector $\hat e_1\equiv (1,0)$.  Any

7837: rotation of the coordinates in an angle $\phi_0$ results in a

7838: multiplicative factor $e^{i\phi_0}$. It is clear that

7839: $Y_j(\hat u)$ is a polynomial in $\hat u$ since $Y_j(\hat

7840: u)=[\hat u\cdot \hat p]^j$ where $\hat p\equiv (1,i)$.  In

7841: three dimensions $\sigma=m$ where $m$ takes on $2j+1$ values

7842: $m=-j, -j+1,\dots,j$. Here $Y_{j,m}\propto e^{im\phi}

7843: P^m_j(\cos\theta)$ where $\phi$ and $\theta$ are the usual

7844: spherical coordinates, and $P^m_j$ is the associated Legendre

7845: polynomial of degree $j-m$. Obviously we again have a

7846: polynomial in $\hat u$ of degree $j$.

7847: 

7848: We now wish to calculate the action  of the Laplacian operator

7849: with respect to $u$ on the $Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u)$. We prove

7850: the following identity:

7851: \begin{equation}

7852: u^2\partial^\alpha\partial_\alpha Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u) =

7853: -j(j+d-2)Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u) \ . \label{LapY}

7854: \end{equation}

7855: One can easily check that for $d=3$ (\ref{LapY}) gives the factor

7856: $j (j + 1)$, well known from the theory of angular-momentum

7857: in Quantum Mechanics. To prove this identity for any $d$, note

7858: that

7859: \begin{equation}

7860: |u|^{2-j}\partial^2 |u|^j Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u)) =0 \ .

7861: \label{firststep}

7862: \end{equation}

7863: This follows from the fact that the Laplacian is an isotropic

7864: operator, and therefore is diagonal in the $Y_{j,\sigma}$. The

7865: same is true for the operator $|u|^{2-j}\partial^2 |u|^j$.

7866: But this operator results in a polynomial in $\hat u$ of degree

7867: $j-2$, which is spanned by $Y_{j',\sigma'}$ such that

7868: $j'\le j -2$. Therefore the RHS of (\ref{firststep}) must

7869: vanish. Accordingly we write

7870: \begin{equation}

7871: \partial^2|u^j|Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat

7872: u)+2\partial^\alpha|u^j|\partial^\alpha

7873: Y_{j,\sigma}+|u^j|\partial^2 Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u) = 0 \ .

7874: \end{equation}

7875: The second term vanishes since it contains a radial derivative

7876: $u^\alpha\partial_\alpha$ operating on $Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u)$

7877: which depends on $\hat u$ only. The first and third terms, upon

7878: elementary manipulations, lead to (\ref{LapY}).

7879: 

7880: Having the $Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u)$ we can now construct the

7881: irreducible representations in the space of constant tensors. The

7882: method is based on acting on the $Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u)$ with

7883: the {\em isotropic} operators $u^\alpha,~\partial^\alpha$ and

7884: $\delta^{\alpha\beta}$. Due to the isotropy of the above

7885: operators, the behavior of the resulting expressions under

7886: rotations is similar to the behavior of the scalar function we

7887: started with. For example, the tensor fields

7888: $\delta^{\alpha\beta}Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u),

7889: \partial^{\alpha}\partial^{\beta}Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u) $

7890: transform under rotations according to the $(j, \sigma)$

7891: sector of SO(d).

7892: 

7893: Next, we wish to find the basis for the irreducible

7894: representations of the space of constant and fully symmetric

7895: tensors with $n$ indices. We form the basis

7896: \begin{equation}

7897: B^{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n}}_{n,j,\sigma}\equiv

7898: \partial^{\alpha_1} \dots \partial^{\alpha_{n}} u^{n}

7899: Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u) , \quad j\le n \ . \label{Birr}

7900: \end{equation}

7901: Note that when $j$ {\em and} $n$ are even

7902: $B^{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n}}_{j,\sigma,n}$ no longer depends

7903: on $\hat u$, and is indeed fully symmetric by construction.

7904: Simple arguments can also prove that this basis is indeed

7905: complete, and spans {\em all} fully symmetric tensors with $n$

7906: indices. Other examples of this procedure for the other spaces

7907: are presented directly in the text.

7908: 

7909: Finally let us introduce two identities involving the

7910: $B_{n,j,\sigma}$. The first one is

7911: \begin{eqnarray}

7912: \delta_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}B^{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n}}_{n,j,\sigma}

7913: &=&z_{n,j}B^{\alpha_3,\dots,\alpha_{n}}_{n-2,j,\sigma} \ ,

7914: \label{iden1}\\ z_{n,j}&=&[n(n+d-2)-j(j+d-2)] \ .

7915: \label{znl}

7916: \end{eqnarray}

7917: It is straightforward to derive this identity using (\ref{LapY}).

7918: The second identity is

7919: \begin{equation}

7920: \sum_{i\ne j} \delta^{\alpha_i\alpha_j}B^{\{\alpha_m\},m\ne

7921: i,j}_{n-2,j,\sigma}

7922: =B^{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{n}}_{n,j,\sigma} \ , \quad j\le

7923: n-2 \ . \label{iden2}

7924: \end{equation}

7925: This identity is proven by writing $u^{n}$ in (\ref{Birr}) as

7926: $u^2 u^{n-2}$, and operating with the derivative on $u^2$. The

7927: term obtained as $u^2\partial^{\alpha_1} \dots

7928: \partial^{\alpha_{n}} u^{n-2} Y_{j,\sigma}(\hat u) $ vanishes

7929: because we have $n$ derivatives on a polynomial of degree $n-2$.

7930: It is worthwhile noticing that these identities connect tensors

7931: from two different spaces. The space of tensors with $n$ indices

7932: and the space of tensors with $n-2$ indices. Nevertheless, in

7933: both spaces, the tensors belong to the same $(j, \sigma)$

7934: sector of the SO(d) group. This is due to the isotropy of the

7935: contraction with $\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}$ in the first

7936: identity, and the contraction with $\delta^{\alpha_i\alpha_j}$ in

7937: the second identity.

7938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7939: \section{Full Form for the $j=2$ Contribution for the Homogeneous Case}

7940: \label{app:fullj2}

7941: In this appendix we focus on the decomposition of second order

7942: tensorial structure functions up to $j=2$. For this purpose we define:

7943: $$

7944:  S^{\alpha\beta}({\bf r}) =  S_{j=0}^{\alpha\beta}({\B r})+

7945:  S_{j=2}^{\alpha\beta}({\B r})

7946: $$

7947: The $j=0$ is well-known and given explicitly by:

7948:  \begin{equation} S_{j=0}^{\alpha\beta}({\bf

7949: r})=c_0r^{\zeta_0^{(2)}} \left[(2+\zeta_0^{(2)}) \delta^

7950: {\alpha\beta}-\zeta_0^{(2)}{r^\alpha r^\beta\over r^2}\right]\ ,

7951: \label{Siso}

7952: \end{equation} where $\zeta_0^{(2)} \approx 0.68$

7953: is the known universal scaling

7954: exponent for the isotropic contribution and $c_0$ is

7955: an unknown coefficient that depends on the boundary conditions of

7956: the flow. For the $j=2$ sector which is the lowest contribution

7957: to anisotropy to the homogeneous structure function, the $m=0$

7958: (axisymmetric) terms were derived from constraints of symmetry,

7959: even parity (because of homogeneity) and incompressibility on the

7960: second order structure function \cite{ara98}

7961: \bea

7962: &S&^{\alpha\beta}_{j=2,m=0} ({\bf r}) =

7963: ar^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}\Big[(\zeta_2^{(2)} -2)\delta^{\alpha\beta} -

7964: \zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)

7965: \delta^{\alpha\beta}

7966: {(\B n\cdot \B r)^2 \over r^2}+2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2){r^\alpha

7967: r^\beta(\B n\cdot \B r)^2 \over r^4} \nonumber \\\label{m0}

7968: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2+3\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)n^\alpha n^\beta

7969: -{\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\over r^2}(r^\alpha n^\beta +

7970: r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B n\cdot \B r)\Big]\\ &+& \nonumber

7971: br^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}\Big [-(\zeta_2^{(2)}

7972: +3)(\zeta_2^{(2)}+2)\delta^ {\alpha\beta}(\B n\cdot \B r)^2 +

7973: {r^\alpha r^\beta \over r^2} + (\zeta_2^{(2)} +3)

7974: (\zeta_2^{(2)}+2)n^\alpha n^\beta\\& + &(2\zeta_2^ {(2)}+1)(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)

7975: {{r^\alpha}{r^\beta}{(\B n\cdot \B r)^2} \over r^4}-

7976: ([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2 - 4)(r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B

7977: n\cdot \B r)\Big] \ . \nonumber

7978: \end{eqnarray}

7979: where $\zeta_2^{(2)}$ is the universal scaling exponent for the

7980: $j=2$ anisotropic sector and $a$ and $b$ are independent unknown

7981: coefficients to be determined by the boundary conditions. We would

7982: now like to derive the remaining $m=\pm1$, and $m=\pm2$ components

7983: $$

7984: S_{2m}^{\alpha\beta}=

7985:     \sum_q {a_{q,2, m}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}B_{q,2, m}^{\alpha\beta} (\bf {\hat

7986: r}

7987: )}

7988: $$

7989: As usual the $q$

7990: label denotes the different possible ways of arriving at the

7991: same $j$ and runs over all such terms with the same parity and

7992: symmetry (a consequence of homogeneity and hence the constraint

7993: of incompressibility).

7994: In all that follows, we work

7995: closely with the procedure outlined in \cite{ara99b}. Following the

7996: convention in \cite{ara99b} the $q$'s to sum over are

7997: $q=\{1,7,9,5\}$. The incompressibility condition $\partial_\alpha

7998: u^\alpha = 0$ coupled with homogeneity can be used to give

7999: relations between the $a_{q,jm}$ for a given $(j,m)$. That is,

8000: for $j=2$, $m=-2\dots 2$ \begin{eqnarray} (\zeta_2^{(2)} -

8001: 2)a_{1,2, m} + 2(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)a_{7,2 m} + (\zeta_2^{(2)} +2)a_{9,2, m}

8002: &=& 0 \\ \nonumber a_{1,2, m} + (\zeta_2^{(2)} +

8003: 3)a_{7,2, m} + \zeta_2^{(2)}a_{5,2,m} &=& 0.

8004:  \end{eqnarray}

8005: We solve the above equations in order to obtain $a_{5,2,m}$ and

8006: $a_{7,2m}$ in terms of linear combinations of $a_{1,2,m}$ and

8007: $a_{9,2m}$. \begin{eqnarray} a_{5,2,m} &=&

8008: {a_{1,2m}([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2 - \zeta_2^{(2)} - 2) + a_{9,2,m}

8009: ([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2 + 5 \zeta_2^{(2)} + 6) \over

8010: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)} \\ \nonumber a_{7,2,m} &=&

8011: {a_{1,2m}(2-\zeta_2^{(2)}) - a_{9,2,m}(2+\zeta_2^{(2)}) \over

8012: 2(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)}.

8013: \end{eqnarray}

8014: Using the above constraints on the coefficients, we are now left

8015: with a linear combination of just two linearly independent tensor

8016: forms {\em for each m}

8017: \begin{eqnarray}\label{genl-s2m}

8018: S^{\alpha\beta}_{2m} &=&

8019: a_{9,2,m}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}[-\zeta_2^{(2)}(2+\zeta_2^{(2)})

8020: B_{7,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) +

8021: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)

8022: B_{9,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) \nonumber \\

8023: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2+5\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)B_{5,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat

8024: r}})] \nonumber\\

8025: &+&a_{1,2,m}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}[2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)

8026: B_{1,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) -

8027: \zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)B_{7,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat

8028: r}})

8029: \nonumber\\

8030: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2-\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)B_{5,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B

8031: {\hat r}})]. \end{eqnarray}

8032: 

8033: The task remains to find the explicit form of the basis tensor

8034: functions $B_{q,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}})$,

8035: $q\in\{1,7,9,5\}$, $m\in\{\pm1,\pm2\}$

8036: \\

8037: $\bullet$\,$ B_{1,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) \equiv

8038: r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}r^j Y_{2m}({\B  {\hat r}})$ \\

8039: $\bullet$\,$ B_{7,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) \equiv

8040: r^{-2}[r^\alpha \partial^\beta +

8041: r^\beta \partial^\alpha]r^2 Y_{2m}({\B  {\hat r}})$ \\

8042: $\bullet$\,$ B_{9,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) \equiv r^{-4}r^\alpha

8043: r^\beta r^2 Y_{2m}({\B  {\hat r}})$ \\

8044: $\bullet$\,$ B_{5,2,m}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) \equiv

8045: \partial^\alpha \partial^\beta r^2 Y_{jm}({\B  {\hat r}})$

8046: 

8047: We obtain the $m=\{\pm1,\pm2\}$ basis functions in the following

8048: derivation. We first note that it is more convenient to form a

8049: real basis from the $ r^2 Y_{2m}({\B  {\hat r}})$ since we

8050: ultimately wish to fit to real quantities and extract real

8051: best-fit parameters. We therefore form the $r^2 {\widetilde

8052: Y}_{2k}({\B  {\hat r}})$ ($k= -1,0,1$) as follows:

8053: \begin{eqnarray}

8054: r^2 {\widetilde Y}_{2\; 0}(\hat {\B  r})&=&r^2 Y_{2\;0}(\hat {\B

8055: r}) =r^2 \cos^2 \theta = r{_3}^2\nonumber \\ r^2 {\widetilde

8056: Y}_{2\;-1}(\hat {\B  r}) &=&r^2 {Y_{2\;-1}(\hat {\B  r}) -

8057: Y_{2\;+1}(\hat {\B  r}) \over 2}\nonumber\\ &=&r^2 {(\cos\phi -

8058: i\sin\phi)\cos\theta\sin\theta + (\cos\phi +

8059: i\sin\phi)\cos\theta\sin\theta \over 2} \nonumber\\ &=&r^2

8060: \cos\theta\sin\theta\cos\phi = r_3 r_1 \nonumber\\ r^2 {\widetilde

8061: Y}_{2\;+1}(\hat {\B  r}) &=&r^2 {Y_{2\; -1}(\hat {\B  r}) +

8062: Y_{2\; +1}(\hat {\B  r}) \over -2i} \nonumber\\ &=&r^2 {(\cos\phi

8063: - i\sin\phi)\cos\theta\sin\theta - (\cos\phi +

8064: i\sin\phi)\cos\theta\sin\theta \over -2i}\nonumber\\ &=&r^2

8065: \cos\theta\sin\theta\sin\phi = r_3 r_2\nonumber\\ r^2 {\widetilde

8066: Y}_{2\;-2}(\hat {\B  r}) &=& r^2 {Y_{2\; 2}(\hat {\B  r}) -

8067: Y_{2\; -2}(\hat {\B  r}) \over 2i} \nonumber\\ &=& r^2

8068: {(\cos2\phi + i\sin2\phi)\sin^2\theta - (\cos2\phi -

8069: i\sin2\phi)\sin^2\theta \over 2i} \nonumber \\ &=& r^2

8070: \sin2\phi\sin^2\theta = 2r_1 r_2 \nonumber \\ r^2 {\widetilde

8071: Y}_{2\;+2}(\hat {\B  r}) &=& r^2 {Y_{2\; 2}(\hat {\B  r}) +

8072: Y_{2\; -2}(\hat {\B  r}) \over 2} \nonumber\\ &=& r^2 {(\cos2\phi

8073: + i\sin2\phi)\sin^2\theta + (\cos2\phi - i\sin2\phi)\sin^2\theta

8074: \over 2} \nonumber \\ &=& r^2 \cos2\phi\sin^2\theta = r_1^2 -

8075: r_2^2 \end{eqnarray} This new basis of $r^2 {\tilde Y}_{2k}{(\B

8076: r)}$ is equivalent to using the $r^2 Y_{jm}{(\B  r)}$ themselves

8077: as they form a complete, orthogonal (in the new $k$'s) set. We omit

8078: the normalization constants for the spherical harmonics for

8079: notational convenience. The subscripts on $r$ denote its

8080: components along the 1 ($m$), 2 ($p$) and 3 ($n$) directions.

8081: ${\B  m}$ denotes the shear direction, ${\B  p}$ the horizontal

8082: direction parallel to the boundary and orthogonal to the mean

8083: wind direction and ${\B  n}$ the direction of the mean wind. This

8084: notation makes it simple to take the derivatives when we form the

8085: different basis tensors and the only thing to remember is that

8086: \begin{eqnarray}

8087: &&\partial^\alpha r_1 = \partial^\alpha (\B  {r \cdot m}) = m^\alpha

8088: \nonumber\\ &&\partial^\alpha r_2 = \partial^\alpha (\B  {r \cdot

8089: p})= p^\alpha \nonumber\\ &&\partial^\alpha r_3 = \partial^\alpha

8090: (\B  {r \cdot \B n}) = n^\alpha \end{eqnarray}

8091: 

8092: We use the above identities to proceed to derive the basis tensor

8093: functions

8094: \begin{eqnarray}

8095: B_{1,2, -1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&

8096: r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta} (\B { r \cdot  n})(\B{ r \cdot m})

8097: \nonumber\\ B_{7,2, -1}^{\alpha\beta} (\B{ {\hat r}}) &=&

8098: r^{-2}[(r^\alpha m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot  n}) +

8099: (r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot m})]

8100: \nonumber\\ B_{9,2, -1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&r^{-2}

8101: r^\alpha r^\beta (\B{  r \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot m})\nonumber\\

8102: B_{5,2, -1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&n^\alpha m^\beta +

8103: n^\beta m^\alpha \nonumber\\ B_{1,2, 1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat

8104: r}}) &=& r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot

8105: p})\nonumber\\ B_{7,2, 1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&

8106: r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot n}) +

8107: (r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})]

8108: \nonumber\\ B_{9,2, 1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&r^{-2}

8109: r^\alpha r^\beta (\B{  r \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot p})\nonumber\\

8110: B_{5,2,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& n^\alpha p^\beta +

8111: n^\beta p^\alpha \nonumber\\ B_{1,2, -2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat

8112: r}}) &=&2 r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot m})(\B{  r

8113: \cdot p})\nonumber\\ B_{7,2, -2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}})

8114: &=&2 r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot

8115: m}) + (r^\alpha m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot

8116: p})]\nonumber \\ B_{9,2, -2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& 2

8117: r^{-2} r^\alpha r^\beta (\B{  r \cdot m})(\B{  r \cdot

8118: p})\nonumber\\ B_{5,2,-2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& 2

8119: (m^\alpha p^\beta + m^\beta p^\alpha) \nonumber\\ B_{1,2,

8120: 2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&

8121: r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}[(\B{  r \cdot m})^2 - (\B{  r \cdot

8122: p})^2] \nonumber\\ B_{7,2, 2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&2

8123: r^{-2}[(r^\alpha m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot m}) -

8124: (r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})]\nonumber

8125: \\ B_{9,2, 2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& r^{-2} r^\alpha

8126: r^\beta [(\B{  r \cdot m})^2 - (\B{  r \cdot p})^2] \nonumber\\

8127: B_{5,2,2}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& 2 (m^\alpha m^\beta -

8128: p^\alpha p^\beta) \end{eqnarray}

8129: 

8130: Note that for each dimension $k$ the tensor is bilinear in some

8131: combination of two basis vectors from the set $\B{  m}$, $\B{ p}$

8132: and $\B{ n}$.

8133: %{bf. can we say something here about why this is

8134: %so... using shear ${\partial u^\alpha over \partial r^\beta}$

8135: %etc...??}

8136:  Substituting these tensors forms into Eq.

8137: \ref{genl-s2m} we obtain the full tensor forms for the $j=2$

8138: non-axisymmetric terms, with two independent coefficients for

8139: each $k$.

8140: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ktens}

8141: S^{\alpha\beta}_{j=2,k=-1}(\B{  r})

8142: &=&a_{9,2,-1}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big

8143: [}-\zeta_2^{(2)}(2+\zeta_2^{(2)}) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha m^\beta +

8144: r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot n})\nonumber\\ &+& (r^\alpha

8145: n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot m})] +

8146: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2) r^{-4} r^\alpha r^\beta (\B{  r

8147: \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot m})\nonumber\\

8148: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2+5\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)(n^\alpha m^\beta +

8149: n^\beta m^\alpha) {\Big ]}\nonumber\\&+&

8150: a_{1,2,-1}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big [}2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} -

8151: 2) r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot m})

8152: \nonumber\\ &-& \zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha

8153: m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot n})

8154: + (r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot m})] \nonumber\\

8155: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2-\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)(n^\alpha m^\beta + n^\beta m^\alpha)

8156: {\Big ]} \nonumber\\

8157: S^{\alpha\beta}_{j=2,k=1}(\B{  r})

8158: &=&a_{9,2,1}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big

8159: [}-\zeta_2^{(2)}(2+\zeta_2^{(2)}) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta +

8160: r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot n})\nonumber\\ &+& (r^\alpha

8161: n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})] +

8162: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)

8163: r^{-4} r^\alpha r^\beta (\B{  r \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot p})\nonumber\\

8164: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2+5\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)(n^\alpha p^\beta + n^\beta p^\alpha)

8165: {\Big ]}\nonumber\\

8166: &+&a_{1,2,1}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big [}2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}

8167: - 2)

8168: r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot n})(\B{  r \cdot p}) \nonumber\\ &-&

8169: \zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)

8170: (\B{  r \cdot n}) + (r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})]

8171: \nonumber\\

8172: &+&([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2-\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)(n^\alpha p^\beta + n^\beta p^\alpha)

8173: {\Big ]}\nonumber\\

8174: S^{\alpha\beta}_{j=2,k=-2}(\B{  r})

8175: &=&a_{9,2,-2}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big

8176: [}-2\zeta_2^{(2)}(2+\zeta_2^{(2)}) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta +

8177: r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot m})\nonumber\\ &+& (r^\alpha

8178: m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})] +

8179: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2) r^{-4} r^\alpha r^\beta (\B{  r

8180: \cdot p})(\B{  r \cdot m}) \nonumber\\ &+&

8181: ([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2+5\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)(m^\alpha p^\beta + m^\beta

8182: p^\alpha) {\Big ]}\nonumber\\&+& a_{1,2,-2}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big

8183: [}2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2)

8184: r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot m})(\B{  r \cdot p}) \nonumber\\

8185: &-&2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta

8186: p^\alpha) (\B{  r \cdot m}) + (r^\alpha m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r

8187: \cdot p})] \nonumber\\

8188: &+&2([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2-\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)(m^\alpha p^\beta + m^\beta p^\alpha)

8189: {\Big ]}\nonumber\\

8190: S^{\alpha\beta}_{j=2,k=2}(\B{  r})

8191: &=&a_{9,2,2}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big

8192: [}-2\zeta_2^{(2)}(2+\zeta_2^{(2)}) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha m^\beta +

8193: r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot m})\nonumber\\ &-& (r^\alpha

8194: p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})] +

8195: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} - 2) r^{-4} r^\alpha r^\beta [(\B{

8196: r \cdot m})^2-(\B{  r \cdot p})^2]\nonumber\\

8197: &+&2([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2+5\zeta_2^{(2)}+6)(m^\alpha m^\beta -

8198: p^\beta p^\alpha) {\Big ]}\nonumber\\&+&

8199: a_{1,2,2}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}{\Big [}2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)} -

8200: 2)

8201: r^{-2}\delta^{\alpha\beta}[(\B{  r \cdot m})^2-(\B{  r \cdot

8202: p})^2]\nonumber\\ &-&2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2) r^{-2}[(r^\alpha

8203: m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha) (\B{  r \cdot m}) - (r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta

8204: p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})] \nonumber\\

8205: &+&2([\zeta_2^{(2)}]^2-\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)(m^\alpha m^\beta -

8206: p^\beta p^\alpha) {\Big ]}

8207: \end{eqnarray}

8208: Now we want to use this form to fit for the scaling exponent

8209: $\zeta_2^{(2)}$ in the structure function $S^{33}(\B  r)$ from

8210: data set I where $\alpha=\beta=3$ and the azimuthal angle of $\B

8211: r$ in the geometry is $\phi = \pi/2$.

8212: \begin{eqnarray}

8213: &S&^{33}_{j=2,k=-1}(r,\theta,\pi/2)=0\nonumber\\

8214: &S&^{33}_{j=2,k=1}(r,\theta,\pi/2)

8215: =a_{9,2,1}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}[-2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}+2)

8216: \sin\theta\cos\theta \nonumber +

8217: 2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\cos^3\theta\sin\theta]

8218: \\ &S&^{33}_{j=2,k=-2}(r,\theta,\pi/2)=0\nonumber \\

8219: &S&^{33}_{j=2,k=2}(r,\theta,\pi/2)

8220: =a_{9,2,2}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}[-2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)

8221: \cos^2\theta\sin^2\theta]

8222: +a_{1,2,2}r^{\zeta_2^{(2)}}[-2\zeta_2^{(2)}(\zeta_2^{(2)}-2)\sin^2\theta]

8223: \nonumber

8224: \end{eqnarray}

8225: We see that choosing a particular geometry eliminates certain

8226: tensor contributions. In the case of set I we are left with 3

8227: independent coefficients for $m\ne0$, the 2 coefficients from the

8228: $m=0$ contribution (Eq. \ref{m0}), and the single coefficient

8229: from the isotropic sector \ref{Siso}, giving a total of 6 fit

8230: parameters. The general forms in \ref{ktens} can be used along

8231: with the $k=0$ (axisymmetric) contribution \ref{Siso} to fit to

8232: any second order tensor object. For convenience, the table shows

8233: the number of independent coefficients that a few different

8234: experimental geometries we have will allow in the $j=2$ sector.

8235: It must be kept in mind that these forms are to be used {\em

8236: only} when there is known to be homogeneity. If there is

8237: inhomogeneity, then we cannot apply the incompressibility

8238: condition to provide constraints in the various parity and

8239: symmetry sectors and we must in general mix different parity

8240: objects, using only the geometry of the experiment itself to

8241: eliminate any terms.

8242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8243: \begin{table}

8244: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

8245: \hline

8246: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi=\pi/2,\alpha=\beta=3$} &

8247: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi = 0,\alpha=\beta=3$} &

8248: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi = 0,\alpha=\beta=1$}&

8249: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi = 0,\alpha=3,\beta=1$}\\ \cline {2-9}

8250: $k$&$\theta \ne 0$ &$\theta = 0$ & $\theta \ne 0$ &$ \theta = 0$

8251: & $\theta \ne 0$ & $\theta = 0$ & $\theta \ne 0 $&$\theta = 0$ \\

8252: \hline 0    & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 \\ \hline -1 & 0 & 0

8253: & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 2 \\ \hline 1  & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0

8254: & 0 \\ \hline -2) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline 2 & 2

8255: & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 \\ \hline \hline

8256: Total   & 5 & 2 & 5 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 6 & 2 \\

8257: \hline

8258: \end{tabular}

8259: \caption{The number of free coefficients in the $j=2$ sector for

8260: homogeneous turbulence and for different geometries}

8261: \end{table}

8262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8263: 

8264: %

8265: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8266: \section{The j=1 Component in the Inhomogeneous Case}

8267: \label{app:fullj1}

8268: \subsection{Antisymmetric Contribution}

8269:     We consider the tensor

8270: $$

8271: T^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r}) = \langle u^\alpha({\B  x} + {\B  r}) -

8272: u^\alpha({\B  x})) (u^\beta({\B  x} + {\B  r}) + u^\beta({\B

8273: x}))\rangle. $$ This object is trivially zero for

8274: $\alpha=\beta$. In the  experimental setup, we measure at points

8275: separated in the shear direction and therefore have inhomogeneity

8276: which makes the object of mixed parity and symmetry.  We cannot

8277: apply the incompressibility condition in same parity/symmetry

8278: sectors as before to provide constraints. We must in general use

8279: all 7 irreducible tensor forms. This would mean fitting for $7 \times

8280: 3 = 21$ independent coefficients plus 1 exponent $\zeta_1^{(2)}$

8281: in the anisotropic sector, together with 2 coefficients in the

8282: isotropic sector. In order to pare down the number of parameter

8283: we are fitting for, we look at the antisymmetric part of

8284: $T^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r})$

8285: $$

8286: {\widetilde T}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}) = {T^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r})

8287: - T^{\beta\alpha}({\B  r}) \over 2} = \langle u^\alpha({\B

8288: x})u^\beta({\B  x} + {\B  r})\rangle - \langle u^\beta({\B

8289: x})u^\alpha({\B  x} + {\B  r})\rangle $$

8290: which will only have contributions from the antisymmetric $j=1$ basis

8291: tensors. These are \\

8292: $\bullet$ Antisymmetric, odd parity

8293: \begin{equation}

8294: B_{3,1,m}^{\alpha\beta} = r^{-1}[r^\alpha\partial^\beta-

8295: r^\beta\partial^\alpha] rY_{1,m}(\B  {\hat r})

8296: \end{equation}

8297: $\bullet$ Antisymmetric, even parity

8298: \begin{eqnarray}

8299: B_{4,1,m}^{\alpha\beta} &=& r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}r_\mu

8300: r Y_{1,m}(\B  {\hat r}) \nonumber\\ B_{2,1,m}^{\alpha\beta} &=&

8301: r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}\partial_\mu r Y_{1,m}(\B  {\hat

8302: r}) \end{eqnarray}

8303: As with the $j=2$ case we form a real basis $r {\tilde

8304: Y}_{1,k}(\B  {\hat r})$ from the (in general) complex $r

8305: Y_{1,m}(\B  {\hat r})$ in order to obtain real coefficients in

8306: the  fits.

8307: \begin{eqnarray}

8308: r {\tilde Y}_{1,k=0}(\B  {\hat r}) &=& r Y_{1,0}(\B  {\hat r})= r\cos\theta

8309: = r_3 \nonumber\\

8310: r {\tilde Y}_{1,k=1}(\B  {\hat r}) &=& r {Y_{1,1}(\B  {\hat r})

8311: +Y_{1,1} (\B  {\hat r}) \over 2i }

8312: =r\sin\theta\sin\phi = r_2 \nonumber\\ r {\tilde

8313: Y}_{1,k=-1}(\B  {\hat r}) &=& r

8314: {Y_{1,-1}(\B  {\hat r}) - Y_{1,1}(\B  {\hat r}) \over 2 }

8315: =r\sin\theta\cos\phi = r_1 \nonumber

8316: \end{eqnarray}

8317: And the final forms are

8318: \begin{eqnarray}

8319: B_{3,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r}) &=& r^{-1}[r^\alpha

8320: n^\beta- r^\beta n^\alpha] \nonumber\\

8321: B_{4,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r})

8322: &=&r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}r_\mu (\B{  r \cdot n}) \nonumber\\

8323: B_{2,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r}) &=&

8324: r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}n_\mu \nonumber\\

8325: B_{3,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r}) &=& r^{-1}[r^\alpha

8326: p^\beta- r^\beta p^\alpha] \nonumber\\

8327: B_{4,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r})

8328: &=&r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}r_\mu (\B{  r \cdot p}) \nonumber\\

8329: B_{2,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r}) &=&

8330: r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}p_\mu \nonumber\\

8331: B_{3,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r}) &=& r^{-1}[r^\alpha

8332: m^\beta- r^\beta m^\alpha] \nonumber\\

8333: B_{4,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r})

8334: &=&r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}r_\mu (\B{  r \cdot m}) \nonumber\\

8335: B_{2,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B  {\hat r}) &=&

8336: r^{-2}\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu}m_\mu \end{eqnarray}

8337: Note: For a given $k$ the representations is symmetric about a

8338: particular axis in  the  coordinate system chosen  (1=m (shear), 2=p

8339: (horizontal), 3=n (mean-wind))

8340: We now have 9 independent terms and we cannot apply

8341: incompressibility in order to reduce the number of independent

8342: coefficients in the  fitting procedure. We use the geometric

8343: constraints of the  experiment to do this.\\

8344: $\bullet$ $\phi = 0$ (vertical separation), $\alpha = 3, \beta =

8345: 3$ \begin{eqnarray} B_{3,1,0}^{31}(r,\theta,\phi=0) = -\sin\theta

8346: \nonumber

8347: \\ B_{2,1,1}^{31}(r,\theta,\phi=0) = 1 \nonumber\\

8348: B_{3,1,-1}^{31}(r,\theta,\phi=0) = \cos\theta \end{eqnarray}

8349: There are no contributions from the reflection-symmetric terms in

8350: the $j=0$ isotropic sector since these are symmetric in the

8351: indices. The helicity term in $j=0$ also doesn't contribute

8352: because of the geometry. So, to lowest order

8353: $$

8354: {\widetilde T}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}) = {\widetilde

8355: T}_{j=1}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r})

8356:  = a_{3,1,0}(r)(-\sin\theta) + a_{2,1,1}(r) + a_{3,1,-1}(r)\cos\theta

8357: $$

8358: We have 3 unknown independent coefficients and 1 unknown exponent

8359: to fit for in the  data.

8360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8361: \subsection{Symmetric Contribution}

8362:     We consider the structure function

8363: $$

8364: S^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}) = \langle (u^\alpha({\B  x} + {\B  r}) -

8365: u^\alpha({\B  x})) (u^\beta({\B  x} + {\B  r}) - u^\beta({\B

8366: x}))\rangle $$ in the case where we have homogeneous flow.

8367: This object is symmetric in the indices by construction, and it

8368: is easily seen that homogeneity implies even parity in $r$:

8369: $

8370:     S^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}) = S^{\beta\alpha}({\B  r})$ and

8371: $S^{\alpha\beta}({\B  -r}) = S^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r}).$

8372:  We reason that this object cannot exhibit a $j=1$

8373: contribution from the $SO(3)$ representation in the following

8374: manner. Homogeneity allows us to use the incompressibility

8375: condition: $  \partial_\alpha S^{\alpha\beta} = 0$ and $ \partial_\beta

8376: S^{\alpha\beta} = 0$,

8377: separately on the basis tensors of a given parity and symmetry in

8378: order to give relationships between their coefficients. For the

8379: even parity, symmetric case we have for general $j \geq 2$ just

8380: two basis tensors and they must occur in some linear combination

8381: with incompressibility providing a constraint between the two

8382: coefficients. However, for $j=1$ we only have one such tensor in

8383: the even parity, symmetric group. Therefore, by

8384: incompressibility, its coefficient must vanish. Consequently, we

8385: cannot have a $j=1$ contribution for the even parity

8386: (homogeneous), symmetric structure function.     Now, we consider

8387: the case as available in experiment when ${\B  r}$ has some

8388: component in the inhomogeneous direction. Now, it is no longer

8389: true that $S^{\alpha\beta}({\B  r})$ is of even parity and

8390: moreover it is also not possible to use incompressibility as

8391: above to exclude the existence of a $j=1$ contribution. We must

8392: look at all $j=1$ basis tensors that are symmetric, but not

8393: confined to even

8394: parity. These are \\

8395: $\bullet$ Odd parity, symmetric

8396: \begin{eqnarray}

8397: B_{1,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) &\equiv&

8398: r^{-1}\delta^{\alpha\beta}r {\tilde Y}_{1k}({\B  {\hat

8399: r}})\nonumber\\ B_{7,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) &\equiv&

8400: r^{-1}[r^\alpha \partial^\beta + r^\beta \partial^\alpha]

8401: r{\tilde Y}_{1k}(\B  {\hat r}) \nonumber \\

8402: B_{9,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) &\equiv& r^{-3}r^\alpha

8403: r^\beta r {\tilde Y}_{1k}({\B  {\hat r}})\nonumber \\

8404: B_{5,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) &\equiv& r

8405: \partial^\alpha \partial^\beta r{\tilde Y}_{1k}({\B  {\hat r}})

8406: \equiv 0

8407: \end{eqnarray}

8408: $\bullet$ Even parity, symmetric

8409: \begin{eqnarray}

8410: B_{8,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}}) &\equiv& r^-2[r^\alpha

8411: \epsilon^{\beta\mu\nu} r_\mu \partial_\nu + r^\beta

8412: \epsilon^{\alpha\mu\nu} r_\mu \partial_\nu] r{\tilde Y}_{1k}(\B

8413: {\hat r}) \nonumber\\ B_{6,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}})

8414: &\equiv& [\epsilon^{\beta\mu\nu} r_\mu \partial_\nu

8415: \partial_\alpha + \epsilon^{\beta\mu\nu} r_\mu \partial_\nu

8416: \partial_\beta] r{\tilde Y}_{1k}(\B  {\hat r}) \equiv 0

8417: \end{eqnarray}

8418: We use the real basis of $r^{-1}{\tilde Y}_{1k}({\B  {\hat r}})$

8419: which are formed from the $r^{-1}Y_{1m}({\B  {\hat r}})$. Both

8420: $B_{5,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}})$ and

8421: $B_{6,1,k}^{\alpha\beta}({\B  {\hat r}})$ vanish because of the

8422: taking of the double derivative of an object of single power in

8423: $r$. We thus have 4 different contributions to symmetric $j=1$

8424: and each of these is of 3 dimensions $(k= -1,0,1)$ giving in

8425: general 12 terms in all. \begin{eqnarray}

8426: B_{1,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&

8427: r^{-1}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot n})\nonumber\\

8428: B_{7,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& r^{-1}[r^\alpha

8429: n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha] \nonumber\\

8430: B_{9,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&r^{-3}r^\alpha r^\beta

8431: (\B{  r \cdot n})\nonumber\\ B_{8,1,0}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat

8432: r}}) &\equiv& r^{-2}[(r^\alpha m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r

8433: \cdot p}) -(r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot

8434: m})]\nonumber \\ B_{1,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&

8435: r^{-1}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot p})\nonumber\\

8436: B_{7,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& r^{-1}[r^\alpha

8437: p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha] \nonumber\\

8438: B_{9,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&r^{-3}r^\alpha r^\beta

8439: (\B{  r \cdot p}) \nonumber\\ B_{8,1,1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat

8440: r}}) &\equiv& r^{-2}[(r^\alpha m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha)(\B{  r

8441: \cdot n}) -(r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot

8442: m})] \nonumber \\ B_{1,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&

8443: r^{-1}\delta^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  r \cdot m})\nonumber\\

8444: B_{7,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=& r^{-1}[r^\alpha

8445: m^\beta + r^\beta m^\alpha] \nonumber\\

8446: B_{9,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &=&r^{-3}r^\alpha

8447: r^\beta (\B{  r \cdot m}) \nonumber\\

8448: B_{8,1,-1}^{\alpha\beta}(\B{  {\hat r}}) &\equiv&

8449: r^{-2}[(r^\alpha p^\beta + r^\beta p^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot n})

8450: -(r^\alpha n^\beta + r^\beta n^\alpha)(\B{  r \cdot p})]

8451: \end{eqnarray}

8452: 

8453: 

8454: 

8455: These are all the possible $j=1$ contributions to the symmetric,

8456: mixed parity (inhomogeneous) structure function.

8457: 

8458: For the  experimental setup II, we want to analyze the

8459: inhomogeneous structure function in the case $\alpha = \beta =

8460: 3$, and azimuthal angle $\phi=0$ (which corresponds to vertical

8461: separation) and we obtain the basis tensors

8462: \begin{eqnarray}

8463: B_{1,1,0}^{33}(\theta) &=& \cos\theta \nonumber\\

8464: B_{7,1,0}^{33}(\theta) &=& 2\cos\theta \nonumber\\

8465: B_{9,1,0}^{33}(\theta) &=& \cos^3\theta \nonumber\\

8466: B_{8,1,1}^{33}(\theta) &=& -2\cos\theta\sin\theta \nonumber\\

8467: B_{1,1,-1}^{33}(\theta) &=& \sin\theta \nonumber\\

8468: B_{9,1,-1}^{33}(\theta) &=& \cos^2\theta\sin\theta

8469: \label{b15}

8470: \end{eqnarray}

8471: Table~D.1 gives the number of free coefficients in the symmetric

8472: $j=1$ sector in the fit to the inhomogeneous structure function

8473: for various geometric configurations.

8474: \begin{table}

8475: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

8476: \hline

8477: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi= 0,\alpha=\beta=3$} &

8478: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi = 0,\alpha=\beta=1$} &

8479: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\phi = 0,\alpha=3,\beta=1$}\\ \cline {2-7}

8480: $k$&$\theta \ne 0$ &$\theta = 0$ & $\theta \ne 0$ &$ \theta = 0$

8481: & $\theta \ne 0$ & $\theta = 0$ \\ \hline 0   & 3 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 2

8482: & 0 \\ \hline 1   & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline -1  & 2 & 0 &

8483: 3 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\ \hline \hline Total & 6 & 3 & 6 & 1 & 4 & 1\\

8484: \hline

8485: \end{tabular}

8486: \caption{The number of free coefficients in the symmetric $j=1$

8487: sector for inhomogeneous turbulence and for different

8488: geometries.} \end{table}

8489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8490: \section{The Matrix Form of the Operator of the Linear Pressure Model}

8491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555555555555555555

8492: \label{app:lp1}

8493: Using the basic identities of the $\Phi_{j m}(\B r)$ functions

8494: (see \cite{ara99b}),

8495: \begin{eqnarray*}

8496:   \partial^2 \Phi_{j m}(\B r) &=& 0 \ , \\

8497:   r^\mu \partial_\mu \Phi_{j m}(\B r) &=& j \Phi_{j m}(\B r) \ ,

8498: \end{eqnarray*}

8499: a short calculation yields:

8500: \begin{eqnarray}

8501:    && \KO C^\alpha(\B r) \equiv

8502:     K^{\mu\nu}(\B r)\partial_\mu\partial_\nu C^\alpha(\B r) =

8503: Dx^\epsilon\Big[

8504: 2c''_1 +

8505: 2(2+\epsilon)\frac{c'_1}{r} -

8506:                 (2+\epsilon)(j+1)(j+2)\frac{c_1}{r^2}

8507:               \Big]B_{1jm}^\alpha(\B{\hat r}) \nonumber \\

8508:      && \quad + Dx^\epsilon\Big[ 2c''_2 + 2(2+\epsilon)\frac{c'_2}{r}

8509:         + 2(2+\epsilon)\frac{c_1}{r^2}  - 2(2+\epsilon)j(j-1)\frac{c_2}{r^2}

8510: \Big]

8511:      B_{2jm}^\alpha(\B{ \hat  r}) \nonumber \ .

8512: \end{eqnarray}

8513: Therefore, in matrix notation, the Kraichnan operator can be

8514: written as:

8515: \begin{eqnarray}

8516:  && \KO \VecII{c_1}{c_2} = 2Dr^\epsilon

8517: \MatII{1}{0}{0}{1}\VecII{c''_1}{c''_2}

8518:   + 2D(2+\epsilon)r^{\epsilon-1} \MatII{1}{0}{0}{1}\VecII{c'_1}{c'_2}

8519:      \nonumber \\

8520:   && \quad - D(2+\epsilon)r^{\epsilon-2} \MatII{(j+1)(j+2)}{0}{-2}{j(j-1)}

8521:       \VecII{c_1}{c_2} \nonumber \\

8522:   && \equiv r^\epsilon \KM_2\VecII{c''_1}{c''_2} +

8523:            r^{\epsilon-1}\KM_1\VecII{c'_1}{c'_2} +

8524:            r^{\epsilon-2}\KM_0\VecII{c_1}{c_2} \ .

8525: \label{def:K-mat}

8526: \end{eqnarray}

8527: Letting

8528: \begin{equation}

8529:   T^\alpha(\B r) = t_1(r)B_{1jm}^\alpha(\B{\hat  r}) +

8530:     t_2(r)B_{2jm}^\alpha(\B{ \hat r}) \ ,

8531: \end{equation}

8532: and applying a Laplacian to $\PO T^\alpha$, we get,

8533: \begin{eqnarray}

8534: \label{eq:explicit-P}

8535:   && \partial^2\PO T^\alpha =

8536:     \Big[ -j t''_2 + j\frac{t'_1}{r} + j(2j-1)\frac{t'_2}{r}-

8537: j(j+1)\frac{t_1}{r^2}

8538:      - j(j-1)(j+1)\frac{t_2}{r^2}\Big]B_{1jm}^\alpha \nonumber\\&&+ \left[

8539: t''_2

8540: -

8541: \frac{t'_1}{r} +

8542: (2-j)\frac{t'_2}{r}\right]

8543:      B_{2jm}^\alpha \ . \nonumber

8544: \end{eqnarray}

8545: Hence in matrix notation,

8546: \begin{eqnarray}

8547: \label{def:P-mat}

8548: && \partial^2\PO\VecII{t_1}{t_2} = \MatII{0}{-j}{0}{1}

8549:         \VecII{t''_1}{t''_2}  +

8550: \frac{1}{r}\MatII{j}{j(2j-1)}{-1}{2-j}

8551:       \VecII{t'_1}{t'_2} \\&&

8552:     \quad - \frac{1}{r^2}\MatII{j(j+1)}{j(j-1)(j+1)}{0}{0}

8553:       \VecII{t_1}{t_2}  \equiv \PM_2\VecII{t^{''}_1}{t^{''}_2} +

8554: \frac{1}{r}\PM_1

8555:       \VecII{t'_1}{t'_2} + \frac{1}{r^2}\PM_0\VecII{t_1}{t_2} \ .\nonumber

8556: \end{eqnarray}

8557: Now that the matrix forms of the Kraichnan operator and of the

8558: Laplacian of the projection operator have been found, we can

8559: combine these two results to find the matrix form of the LHS of

8560: \Eq{eq:diff-C}. To this aim let us define,

8561: $$

8562:   \VecII{t_1}{t_2} = \KO \VecII{c_1}{c_2} \ ,$$

8563: and from Eq.~(\ref{def:K-mat},\ref{def:P-mat}) we get,

8564: \begin{eqnarray}

8565:   && \partial^2 \PO \KO \VecII{c_1}{c_2} =

8566:     r^\epsilon \MM_4 \VecII{c^{(4)}_1}{c^{(4)}_2} +

8567:     r^{\epsilon-1} \MM_3 \VecII{c^{(3)}_1}{c^{(3)}_2} +\ r^{\epsilon-2}

8568: \MM_2

8569: \VecII{c^{(2)}_1}{c^{(2)}_2}

8570:    \nonumber\\&&+ r^{\epsilon-3} \MM_1 \VecII{c^{(1)}_1}{c^{(1)}_2}  +\

8571: r^{\epsilon-4} \MM_0

8572: \VecII{c_1}{c_2} \ ,

8573: \nonumber

8574: \end{eqnarray}

8575: where the number in parenthesis denotes the order of the

8576: derivative. The matrices $\MM_i$ are given by:

8577: \begin{eqnarray}

8578: \label{def:M-mat}

8579: \MM_4 &\equiv& \PM_2\KM_2 \ , \\

8580: \MM_3 &\equiv& 2\epsilon\PM_2\KM_2 + \PM_2\KM_1 + \PM_1\KM_2 \ , \nonumber

8581: \\

8582: \MM_2 &\equiv& \epsilon(\epsilon-1)\PM_2\KM_2 + 2(\epsilon-1)\PM_2\KM_1 +

8583: \PM_2\KM_0

8584:          \nonumber \\

8585:       && \quad \ + \epsilon\PM_1\KM_2 + \PM_1\KM_1 + \PM_0\KM_2 \ ,

8586: \nonumber \\

8587: \MM_1 &\equiv& (\epsilon-1)(\epsilon-2)\PM_2\KM_1 + 2(\epsilon-2)\PM_2\KM_0

8588: \nonumber \\

8589:       && \quad \ + (\epsilon -1)\PM_1\KM_1 +\PM_1\KM_0 + \PM_0\KM_1 \

8590: ,\nonumber

8591: \\

8592: \MM_0 &\equiv& (\epsilon-2)(\epsilon-3)\PM_2\KM_0 + (\epsilon-2)\PM_1\KM_0

8593:           + \PM_0\KM_0  \ . \nonumber

8594: \end{eqnarray}

8595: To find the RHS of \Eq{eq:diff-C} we expand the ``forcing''

8596: $A^\alpha(\B r)$ in terms of the spherical vectors $\B B_{1jm}, \B

8597: B_{2jm}$,

8598: \begin{equation}

8599: A^\alpha(\B r) = f_1(r) B^\alpha_{1jm}(\B{ \hat r}) +

8600:                   f_2(r) B^\alpha_{2jm}(\B{ \hat r}) \ ,

8601: \end{equation}

8602: and applying a Laplacian we find the matrix form of $\partial^2

8603: A^\alpha(\B r)$:

8604: \begin{eqnarray}

8605: && \partial^2 \VecII{f_1}{f_2} =

8606:    \left( \begin{array}{c}

8607:     f''_1 + \frac{2}{r}f'_1 - (j+1)(j+2)\frac{1}{r^2}f_1 \\ \ \\

8608:    f''_2 + \frac{2}{r}f'_2 + \frac{2}{r^2}f_1 - j(j-1)\frac{1}{r^2}f_2

8609:    \end{array} \right)  \equiv \VecII{\rho_1}{\rho_2} \ .

8610: \end{eqnarray}

8611: At this point it is worthwhile to remember that the forcing term

8612: $A^\alpha(\B r/L)$ is assumed to be analytic. As a result for

8613: $r/L \ll 1$ its leading contribution in the $(j,m)$ sector is

8614: proportional to $\partial^\alpha r^j Y_{j m}(\hat{\B r})

8615: \sim r^{j-1}$. However $\partial^2 A^{\alpha}(\B r/L)$ is also

8616: analytic, and must therefore also scale like $r^{j-1}$ for

8617: small $r$, instead of like $r^{j-3}$ which could be the naive

8618: dimensional guess.

8619: 

8620: To proceed we restrict ourselves to finding the solution in the

8621: inertial range and beyond. In these ranges the dissipative term

8622: $\kappa

8623: \partial^2\partial^2 C^\alpha(\B r)$ is negligible and can be omitted,

8624: thus reaching Eq.~(\ref{eq:C-mat}) for $c_1(r)$ and $c_2(r)$.

8625: 

8626: %\bibliography{literatur}

8627: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

8628: 

8629: \bibitem{my75}

8630: A.~S. Monin and A.~M. Yaglom, {\em Statistical Fluid Mechanics} (The MIT Press,

8631:   Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975).

8632: 

8633: \bibitem{tay35}

8634: G.~I. Taylor, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~A {\bf 151},  421  (1935).

8635: 

8636: \bibitem{kar38}

8637: T.~D. K\'arm\'an and L. Howarth, Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~A {\bf 164},  192  (1938).

8638: 

8639: \bibitem{kol41}

8640: A.~N. Kolmogorov, CR. Acad. Sci. USSR. {\bf 30},  299  (1941).

8641: 

8642: \bibitem{fri95}

8643: U. Frisch, {\em Turbulence: The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov} (Cambridge

8644:   University Press, Cambridge, 1995).

8645: 

8646: \bibitem{hin75}

8647: J.~O. Hinze, {\em Turbulence} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975).

8648: 

8649: \bibitem{she00}

8650: X. Shen and Z. Warhaft, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 12},  2976  (2000).

8651: 

8652: \bibitem{lum67}

8653: J.~L. Lumley, Phys. Fluids {\bf 10},  855  (1967).

8654: 

8655: \bibitem{sad94}

8656: S.~G. Saddoughi and S.~V. Veeravalli, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 268},  333  (1994).

8657: 

8658: \bibitem{kur00}

8659: S. Kurien and K.~R. Sreenivasan, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},  2206  (2000).

8660: 

8661: \bibitem{lum65}

8662: J. Lumley, Phys. Fluids {\bf 8},  1056  (1965).

8663: 

8664: \bibitem{tav81}

8665: S. Tavoularis and S. Corrsin, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 104},  311  (1981).

8666: 

8667: \bibitem{kur00a}

8668: S. Kurien, V. L'vov, I. Procaccia, and K. Sreenivasan, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},

8669:   2206  (2000).

8670: 

8671: \bibitem{fer00}

8672: M. Ferchichi and S. Tavoularis, Phys. Fluids {\bf 12},  2942  (2000).

8673: 

8674: \bibitem{bif02}

8675: L. Biferale, I. Daumont, A. Lanotte, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 66},

8676:   056306  (2002).

8677: 

8678: \bibitem{ben02}

8679: R. Benzi, G. Amati, C.~M. Casciola, F. Toschi, and R. Piva, Phys. Fluids {\bf

8680:   11},  1284  (1999).

8681: 

8682: \bibitem{cas00}

8683: P. Gualtieri, C.~M. Casciola, R. Benzi, G. Amati, and R. Piva, Phys. Fluids

8684:   {\bf 14},  583  (2002).

8685: 

8686: \bibitem{tos99}

8687: F. Toschi, G. Amati, S. Succi, R. Benzi, and R. Piva, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf

8688:   82},  5044  (1999).

8689: 

8690: \bibitem{tos00}

8691: F. Toschi, E. Leveque, and G. Ruiz-Chavarria, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85},  1436

8692:   (2000).

8693: 

8694: \bibitem{pum95}

8695: A. Pumir and B.~I. Shraiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75},  3114  (1995).

8696: 

8697: \bibitem{pum96}

8698: A. Pumir, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 8},  3112  (1996).

8699: 

8700: \bibitem{sch02}

8701: J. Schumacher, K. Sreenivasan, and P. Yeung, Phys. Fluids {\bf 15},  84

8702:   (2003).

8703: 

8704: \bibitem{ara99b}

8705: I. Arad, V. L'vov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59},  6753  (1999).

8706: 

8707: \bibitem{fal01}

8708: G. Falkovich, K. Gaw\c{e}dzki, and M. Vergassola, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73},

8709:   913  (2001).

8710: 

8711: \bibitem{ara00}

8712: I. Arad, V. L'vov, E. Podivilov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},  4904

8713:    (2000).

8714: 

8715: \bibitem{ara00a}

8716: I. Arad, L. Biferale, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},  2654  (2000).

8717: 

8718: \bibitem{lan99}

8719: A. Lanotte and A. Mazzino, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60},  R3483  (1999).

8720: 

8721: \bibitem{ara01}

8722: I. Arad and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63},  056302  (2001).

8723: 

8724: \bibitem{ara98}

8725: I. Arad, B. Dhruva, S. Kurien, V.~S. L'vov, I. Procaccia, and K.~R.

8726:   Sreenivasan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},  5330  (1998).

8727: 

8728: \bibitem{she02}

8729: X. Shen and Z. Warhaft, Phys. Fluids {\bf 14},  370  (2002).

8730: 

8731: \bibitem{she02a}

8732: X. Shen and Z. Warhaft, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 14},  2432  (2002).

8733: 

8734: \bibitem{wander}

8735: A. Staicu, B. Vorselaars, and W. van~de Water, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68},

8736:   (2003).

8737: 

8738: \bibitem{iacob04}

8739: B. Jacob, L. Biferale, G. Iugo, and C. Casciola, Phys. Fluids  (2004),

8740:   submitted.

8741: 

8742: \bibitem{ara99}

8743: I. Arad, L. Biferale, I. Mazzitelli, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

8744:   82},  5040  (1999).

8745: 

8746: \bibitem{bif01}

8747: L. Biferale and M. Vergassola, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 13},  2139  (2001).

8748: 

8749: \bibitem{bif01a}

8750: L. Biferale and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},  4831  (2001).

8751: 

8752: \bibitem{ish02}

8753: T. Ishihara, K. Yoshida, and Y. Kaneda, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88},  154501

8754:   (2002).

8755: 

8756: \bibitem{sch00}

8757: J. Schumacher and B. Eckhardt, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 52},  627  (2000).

8758: 

8759: \bibitem{rob40}

8760: H. Robertson, Proc.~Camb.~Phil.~Soc. {\bf 36},  209  (1940).

8761: 

8762: \bibitem{chk96}

8763: O. Chkhetiani, JETP Lett. {\bf 63},  808  (1996).

8764: 

8765: \bibitem{lvo97a}

8766: V. L'vov, E. Podivilov, and I. Procaccia, chao-dyn/9705016  (1997).

8767: 

8768: \bibitem{eyink1}

8769: Q. Chen, S. Chen, and G.~L. Eyink, Phys. Fluids {\bf 15},  361  (2003).

8770: 

8771: \bibitem{eyink2}

8772: Q. Chen, S. Chen, G.~L. Eyink, and D. Holm, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90},  254501

8773:   (2003).

8774: 

8775: \bibitem{bif98c}

8776: L. Biferale, D. Pierotti, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57},  R2515  (1998).

8777: 

8778: \bibitem{kur03}

8779: S. Kurien, Physica D {\bf 175},  167  (2003).

8780: 

8781: \bibitem{pol03}

8782: H. Politano, T. Gomez, and A. Pouquet, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68},  026315  (2003).

8783: 

8784: \bibitem{fri90}

8785: U. Frisch and Z. She, Fluid Dyn. Res. {\bf 8},  139  (1991).

8786: 

8787: \bibitem{ben91}

8788: R. Benzi, L. Biferale, G. Paladin, A. Vulpiani, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev.

8789:   Lett. {\bf 67},  2299  (1991).

8790: 

8791: \bibitem{ans84}

8792: F. Anselmet, Y. Gagne, E.~J. Hopfinger, and R. Antonia, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf

8793:   140},  63  (1984).

8794: 

8795: \bibitem{kan03}

8796: Y. Kaneda, T. Ishihara, M. Yokokawa, K. Itakura, and A. Uno, Phys. Fluids {\bf

8797:   15},  L21  (2003).

8798: 

8799: \bibitem{ben93b}

8800: R. Benzi, S. Ciliberto, R. Tripiccione, C. Baudet, F. Massaioli, and S. Succi,

8801:   Phys. Rev. E {\bf 48},  R29  (1993).

8802: 

8803: \bibitem{kol62}

8804: A.~N. Kolmogorov, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 13},  82  (1962).

8805: 

8806: \bibitem{lvo96}

8807: V. L'vov and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 76},  2898  (1996).

8808: 

8809: \bibitem{ben98}

8810: R. Benzi, L. Biferale, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80},  3244  (1998).

8811: 

8812: \bibitem{gar98}

8813: S. Garg and Z. Warhaft, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 10},  662  (1998).

8814: 

8815: \bibitem{war00}

8816: Z. Warhaft, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. {\bf 32},  203  (2000).

8817: 

8818: \bibitem{gib77}

8819: C. Gibson, C. Friehe, and S. McConnel, Phys. Fluids {\bf 20},  S156  (1977).

8820: 

8821: \bibitem{ant78}

8822: R. Antonia and C. van Atta, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 84},  561  (1978).

8823: 

8824: \bibitem{sre91}

8825: K. Sreenivasan, Proc. R. Soc. London {\bf Ser. A 434},  165  (1991).

8826: 

8827: \bibitem{p94}

8828: A. Pumir, Phys. Fluids {\bf 6},  6  (1994).

8829: 

8830: \bibitem{cel01}

8831: A. Celani, A. Lanotte, A. Mazzino, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Fluids {\bf 13},

8832:   1768  (2001).

8833: 

8834: \bibitem{che97}

8835: S. Chen, K.~R. Sreenivasan, M. Nelkin, and N. Cao, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},

8836:   2253  (1997).

8837: 

8838: \bibitem{dhr97}

8839: B. Dhruva, Y. Tsuji, and K.~R. Sreenivasan, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56},  R4928

8840:   (1997).

8841: 

8842: \bibitem{got02}

8843: T. Gotoh, D. Fukayama, and T. Nakano, Phys. Fluids {\bf 14},  1065  (2002).

8844: 

8845: \bibitem{wat99}

8846: W. van~de Water and J. Herweijer, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 387},  3  (1999).

8847: 

8848: \bibitem{zho99}

8849: T. Zhou and R. Antonia, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 406},  81  (1999).

8850: 

8851: \bibitem{nou97}

8852: A. Noullez, G. Wallace, W. Lempert, R.~B. Miles, and U. Frisch, J. Fluid Mech.

8853:   {\bf 339},  287  (1997).

8854: 

8855: \bibitem{cam96}

8856: R. Camussi, D. Barbagallo, G. Guj, and F. Stella, Phys. Fluids {\bf 8},  1181

8857:   (1996).

8858: 

8859: \bibitem{bor97}

8860: O.~N. Boratav and R.~B. Pelz, Phys. Fluids {\bf 9},  1400  (1997).

8861: 

8862: \bibitem{ker01}

8863: R. Kerr, M. Meneguzzi, and T. Gotoh, Phys. Fluids {\bf 13},  1985  (2001).

8864: 

8865: \bibitem{gro98b}

8866: S. Grossmann, D. Lohse, and A. Reeh, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 93},  715  (1998).

8867: 

8868: \bibitem{gau98}

8869: E. Gaudin, B. Protas, S. Gouion-Durand, J. Wojciechowski, and J. Wesfried,

8870:   Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57},  R9  (1998).

8871: 

8872: \bibitem{ono00}

8873: M. Onorato, R. Camussi, and G. Iuso, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},  1447  (2000).

8874: 

8875: \bibitem{str96}

8876: R. BEnzi, M. Struglia, and R. Tripiccione, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53},  5565

8877:   (1996).

8878: 

8879: \bibitem{bat46}

8880: G.~K. Batchelor, Proc.~Roy.~Sco.~Lond.~A {\bf 186},  480  (1946).

8881: 

8882: \bibitem{cha50}

8883: S. Chandrasekhar, Proc.~Roy.~Sco.~Lond.~A {\bf 242},  557  (1950).

8884: 

8885: \bibitem{lin95}

8886: E. Lindborg, J.~Fluid~Mech. {\bf 302},  179  (1995).

8887: 

8888: \bibitem{her74}

8889: J.~R. Herring, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 17},  859  (1974).

8890: 

8891: \bibitem{rot51}

8892: J.~C. Rotta, Z.~Phys. {\bf 129},  547  (1951).

8893: 

8894: \bibitem{lum77}

8895: J.~L. Lumley and G.~R. Newman, J.~Fluid~Mech. {\bf 82},  161  (1977).

8896: 

8897: \bibitem{lum70}

8898: J.~L. Lumley, {\em Stochastic tools in turbulence} (Acad.~Press, London, 1970).

8899: 

8900: \bibitem{chu95}

8901: M.~K. Chung and S.~K. Kim, Phys.~Fluid {\bf 7},  1425  (1995), and refernce

8902:   therein.

8903: 

8904: \bibitem{gen80}

8905: J.~N. Gence and J. Mathieu, J.~Fluid~Mech. {\bf 101},  555  (1980).

8906: 

8907: \bibitem{kra59}

8908: R.~H. Kraichnan, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 5},  497  (1959).

8909: 

8910: \bibitem{sch76}

8911: U. Schumann and J.~R. Herring, J.~Fluid~Mech. {\bf 76},  755  (1976).

8912: 

8913: \bibitem{ors70}

8914: S.~A. Orszag, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 41},  363  (1970).

8915: 

8916: \bibitem{ors77}

8917: S.~A. Orszag,  in {\em Fluid Dynamics, Les Houches Summer school}, edited by R.

8918:   Balian and J.~L. Peube (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1977), pp.\ 237--374.

8919: 

8920: \bibitem{nak87}

8921: N. Nakauchi and H. Oshima, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 30},  3653  (1987).

8922: 

8923: \bibitem{sou95}

8924: F.~D. Souza, V. Nguyen, and S. Tavoularis, J. Fluid MEch. {\bf 303},  155

8925:   (1995).

8926: 

8927: \bibitem{yak94}

8928: V. Yakhot, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49},  2887  (1994).

8929: 

8930: \bibitem{gro94}

8931: S. Grossmann, D. Lohse, V. L'vov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73},

8932:   432  (1994).

8933: 

8934: \bibitem{fal95}

8935: G. Falkovich and V. L'vov, Chaos,~Solitons~and~Fractals {\bf 5},  1855  (1995).

8936: 

8937: \bibitem{gro00}

8938: S. Grossmann, A. von~der Heydt, and D. Lohse, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 440},  381

8939:   (2001).

8940: 

8941: \bibitem{kra68}

8942: R.~H. Kraichnan, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 11},  945  (1968).

8943: 

8944: \bibitem{gaw95}

8945: K. Gaw\c{e}dzki and A. Kupiainen, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 75},  3834  (1995).

8946: 

8947: \bibitem{che95}

8948: M. Chertkov, G. Falkovich, I. Kolokolov, and V. Lebedev, Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 52},

8949:    4924  (1995).

8950: 

8951: \bibitem{ber96}

8952: D. Bernard, K. Gaw\c{e}dzcki, and A. Kupiainen, Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 54},  2624

8953:   (1996).

8954: 

8955: \bibitem{gat}

8956: O. Gat, V.~S. L'vov, E. Podivilov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55},

8957:   3836R  (1997).

8958: 

8959: \bibitem{fai96}

8960: A. Fairhall, O. Gat, V.~S. L'vov, and I. Procaccia, Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 53},

8961:   3518  (1996).

8962: 

8963: \bibitem{lvo96c}

8964: V.~S. L'vov and I. Procaccia, Phys.~Fluids {\bf 8},  2565  (1996).

8965: 

8966: \bibitem{tay38}

8967: G.~I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. London A {\bf 164},  476  (1938).

8968: 

8969: \bibitem{Corn}

8970: J. Cornwell, {\em Group Theory in Physics} (Academic, London, 1984).

8971: 

8972: \bibitem{Stern}

8973: S. Sternberg, {\em Group Theory and Physics} (Canbridge University Press,

8974:   Cambridge, 1994).

8975: 

8976: \bibitem{bel87}

8977: V.~I. Belinicher and V.~S. L'vov, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 66},  303  (1987).

8978: 

8979: \bibitem{kra94}

8980: R. Kraichnan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72},  1016  (1994).

8981: 

8982: \bibitem{ver96}

8983: M. Vergassola, Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 53},  R3021  (1996).

8984: 

8985: \bibitem{anto01}

8986: L.~T. Adzhemyan, N.~V. Antonov, M. Hnatich, and S.~V. Novikov, Phys. Rev. E

8987:   {\bf 63},  016309  (2001).

8988: 

8989: \bibitem{anto01a}

8990: N.~V. Antonov and J. Honkonen, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63},  036302  (2001).

8991: 

8992: \bibitem{anto00}

8993: N. Antonov, J. Honkonen, A. Mazzino, and P. Muratore-Ginanneschi, Phys. Rev. E

8994:   {\bf 62},  R5891  (2000).

8995: 

8996: \bibitem{anto99}

8997: N. Antonov, A. Lanotte, and A. Mazzino, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},  6586  (2000).

8998: 

8999: \bibitem{anto03}

9000: N. Antonov, M. Hnatich, J. Honkonen, and M. Jurcisin, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68},

9001:   046306  (2003).

9002: 

9003: \bibitem{lvo94c}

9004: V.~S. L'vov, I. Procaccia, and A.~L. Fairhall, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 50},  4684

9005:   (1994).

9006: 

9007: \bibitem{ben97}

9008: R. Benzi, L. Biferale, and A. Wirth, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78},  4926  (1997).

9009: 

9010: \bibitem{ap01}

9011: I. Arad and I. Procaccia, IUTAM symposium, ed. T. Kambe  175  (2001).

9012: 

9013: \bibitem{sra74}

9014: B.~I. Shraiman and E.~D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49},  2912  (1974).

9015: 

9016: \bibitem{gat98}

9017: O. Gat and R. Zeitak, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57},  5331  (1998).

9018: 

9019: \bibitem{gat98b}

9020: O. Gat, R. Zeitak, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80},  5536  (1998).

9021: 

9022: \bibitem{fmnv99}

9023: U. Frisch, A. Mazzino, A. Noullez, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Fluids {\bf 11},

9024:   2178  (1999).

9025: 

9026: \bibitem{cel01a}

9027: A. Celani and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},  424  (2001).

9028: 

9029: \bibitem{ara01a}

9030: I. Arad, L. Biferale, A. Celani, I. Procaccia, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev.

9031:   Lett. {\bf 87},  164502  (2001).

9032: 

9033: \bibitem{lvo96a}

9034: V.~S. L'vov and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77},  3541  (1996).

9035: 

9036: \bibitem{fri91}

9037: U. Frisch and M. Vergassola, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 14},  439  (1991).

9038: 

9039: \bibitem{ben96b}

9040: R. Benzi, L. Biferale, S. Ciliberto, M.~V. Struglia, and R. Tripiccione,

9041:   Physica D {\bf 96},  162  (1996).

9042: 

9043: \bibitem{cel04}

9044: A. Celani, M. Cencini, M. Vergassola, E. Villermaux, and D. Vincenzi, J. Fluid

9045:   Mech.  (2004), submitted.

9046: 

9047: \bibitem{chi95}

9048: S. Childress and A. Gilbert, {\em Twist Stretch Fold: the Fast Dynamo}

9049:   (Springer, Berlin, 1995).

9050: 

9051: \bibitem{lvo95c}

9052: V.~S. L'vov and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52},  3840  (1995).

9053: 

9054: \bibitem{fuk00}

9055: D. Fukayama, T. Oyamada, T. Nakano, T. Gotoh, and K. Yamamoto, J. Phys. Soc.

9056:   Japan {\bf 69},  701  (200).

9057: 

9058: \bibitem{ben01a}

9059: R. Benzi, L. Biferale, and F. Toschi, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 24},  125  (2001).

9060: 

9061: \bibitem{yos01}

9062: K. Yoshida and Y. Kaneda, Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 63},  016308  (2001).

9063: 

9064: \bibitem{lvo03}

9065: V.~S. L'vov, I. Procaccia, and V. Tiberkevich, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67},  026312

9066:   (2003).

9067: 

9068: \bibitem{bif03a}

9069: L. Biferale, E. Calzavarini, F. Toschi, and R. Tripiccione, Europhys. Lett.

9070:   {\bf 64},  461  (2003).

9071: 

9072: \bibitem{lpp99}

9073: V.~S. L'vov, A. Pomyalov, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60},  4175

9074:   (1999).

9075: 

9076: \bibitem{kra67}

9077: R. Kraichnan, Phys. Fluids {\bf 10},  2080  (1967).

9078: 

9079: \bibitem{sch01}

9080: J. Schumacher, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 441},  109  (2001).

9081: 

9082: \bibitem{sta02}

9083: A. Staicu, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Technology Eindhoven, 2002.

9084: 

9085: \bibitem{sta03}

9086: A. Staicu and W. van~de Water, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90},  094501  (2003).

9087: 

9088: \bibitem{rog82}

9089: R. Rogallo, NASA Tech. Memo. {\bf 81315},    (1982).

9090: 

9091: \bibitem{bif02a}

9092: L. Biferale, D. Lohse, I. Mazzitelli, and F. Toschi, J.~Fluid Mech. {\bf 542},

9093:   39  (2002).

9094: 

9095: \bibitem{bif03b}

9096: L. Biferale, I. Daumont, A. Lanotte, and F. Toschi, Europ. Journ. Mech. {\bf B}

9097:    (2004), in press.

9098: 

9099: \bibitem{ama97}

9100: G. Amati, R. Benzi, and S. Succi, Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 55},  6985  (1997).

9101: 

9102: \bibitem{ama97a}

9103: G. Amati, S. Succi, and R. Piva, Int.~Jour.~Mod.~Phys.~C {\bf 8},  869  (1997).

9104: 

9105: \bibitem{bor96}

9106: V. Borue and S.~A. Orszag, J. Fluid. Mech. {\bf 306},  293  (1996).

9107: 

9108: \bibitem{mene00}

9109: C. Meneveau and J. Katz, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. {\bf 32},  1  (2000).

9110: 

9111: \bibitem{gro02}

9112: S. Grossmann and D. Lohse, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 66},  016305  (2002).

9113: 

9114: \bibitem{kad01}

9115: L. Kadanoff, Physics Today {\bf 54},  34  (2001).

9116: 

9117: \bibitem{yak92}

9118: V. Yakhot, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69},  769  (1992).

9119: 

9120: \bibitem{che97b}

9121: S. Chen, K.~R. Sreenivasan, and M. Nelkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},  1253

9122:   (1997).

9123: 

9124: \bibitem{bat53}

9125: G.~K. Batchelor, {\em The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence} (Cambridge

9126:   University Press, Cambridge, 1953).

9127: 

9128: \bibitem{skr00}

9129: L. Skrbek and S. Stalp, Phys. Fluids {\bf 12},  1997  (2000).

9130: 

9131: \bibitem{des94}

9132: I.~D. Silva and H. Fernando, Phys. Fluids {\bf 6},  2455  (1994).

9133: 

9134: \bibitem{bif03c}

9135: L. Biferale, G. Boffetta, A. Celani, A. Lanotte, F. Toschi, and M. Vergassola,

9136:   Phys. Fluids {\bf 15},  2105  (2003).

9137: 

9138: \bibitem{bor95}

9139: V. Borue and S.~A. Orszag, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51},  R856  (1995).

9140: 

9141: \bibitem{62Ham}

9142: M. Hammermesh, {\em Group Theory and its Applications to Physical Problems}

9143:   (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Ma, 1962).

9144: 

9145: \bibitem{horvai}

9146: P. Horvai, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique, 2003.

9147: 

9148: \end{thebibliography}

9149: 

9150: 

9151: %\input{biblio.tex}

9152: %\clearpage

9153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% comment next line if you do not want figures

9154: %\input{figlist.tex}

9155: 

9156: 

9157: 

9158: \end{document}

9159: 

9160: 

9161: