1: \documentclass

2: [aps,pre,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs,amsmath,floatfix]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{bm,graphicx}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \preprint{PUPT-2140}

8: 

9: \title{Field theory of the inverse cascade in two-dimensional turbulence}

10: 

11: \author{Jackson R. Mayo}

12: \email{jmayo@princeton.edu}

13: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New

14: Jersey 08544-0708}

15: 

16: \begin{abstract}

17: A two-dimensional fluid, stirred at high wavenumbers and damped by both

18: viscosity and linear friction, is modeled by a statistical field theory. The

19: fluid's long-distance behavior is studied using renormalization-group (RG)

20: methods, as begun by Forster, Nelson, and Stephen [Phys.\ Rev.\ A

21: \textbf{16}, 732 (1977)]. With friction, which dissipates energy at low

22: wavenumbers, one expects a stationary inverse energy cascade for strong

23: enough stirring. While such developed turbulence is beyond the quantitative

24: reach of perturbation theory, a combination of exact and perturbative results

25: suggests a coherent picture of the inverse cascade. The zero-friction

26: fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) is derived from a generalized

27: time-reversal symmetry and implies zero anomalous dimension for the velocity

28: even when friction is present. Thus the Kolmogorov scaling of the inverse

29: cascade cannot be explained by any RG fixed point. The $\beta$ function for

30: the dimensionless coupling $\hat g$ is computed through two loops; the $\hat

31: g^3$ term is positive, as already known, but the $\hat g^5$ term is negative.

32: An ideal cascade requires a linear $\beta$ function for large $\hat g$,

33: consistent with a Pad\'e approximant to the Borel transform. The conjecture

34: that the Kolmogorov spectrum arises from an RG flow through large $\hat g$ is

35: compatible with other results, but the accurate $k^{-5/3}$ scaling is not

36: explained and the Kolmogorov constant is not estimated. The lack of scale

37: invariance should produce intermittency in high-order structure functions, as

38: observed in some but not all numerical simulations of the inverse cascade.

39: When analogous RG methods are applied to the one-dimensional Burgers equation

40: using an FDT-preserving dimensional continuation, equipartition is obtained

41: instead of a cascade---in agreement with simulations.

42: \end{abstract}

43: 

44: \pacs{47.27.Gs}

45: 

46: \maketitle

47: 

48: \section{\label{Intro}Introduction}

49: 

50: The cascade of energy to low wavenumbers in two-dimensional turbulence

51: \cite{K67}, more than other turbulence problems, is suited to the standard

52: methods of statistical field theory and the renormalization group (RG). These

53: methods \cite{Z96}, originating in quantum field theory, show that arbitrary

54: short-distance interactions lead to long-distance behavior described by a

55: local, renormalizable action---an effective field theory. Correlation

56: functions computed from this action contain ultraviolet (UV) divergences that

57: can be eliminated by redefining the parameters and fields. The divergences

58: leave their mark, however, in the dependence on the renormalization scale and

59: the resulting anomalous scaling laws.

60: 

61: The classic application of statistical field theory is to critical phenomena

62: (second-order phase transitions) in condensed matter \cite{Z96}. The infrared

63: (IR) scale invariance of correlation functions at the transition temperature

64: is explained by a fixed point of the RG flow. The inverse energy cascade of

65: two-dimensional turbulence is likewise believed to be nearly scale invariant,

66: and one might suspect that a similar fixed point is responsible. We will see,

67: however, that no fixed point can reproduce the observed $k^{-5/3}$ energy

68: spectrum. Rather, we will argue that the inverse cascade arises from a

69: nontrivial RG flow and thus is not expected to be completely scale invariant.

70: 

71: In the study of turbulence, a deviation from scale invariance (a dependence

72: of dimensionless physical quantities on scale) is referred to as

73: intermittency \cite{F95}. While intermittency is recognized as a property of

74: the three-dimensional direct cascade of energy, its existence in the

75: two-dimensional inverse cascade is unsettled. For a nonstationary inverse

76: cascade, in which energy is not dissipated but progresses to ever-lower

77: wavenumbers, intermittency is not observed in numerical simulations

78: \cite{SY93,SY94}; a theoretical explanation has been given \cite{Y99}. In

79: this paper we deal solely with the stationary regime, where an inverse

80: cascade requires a low-wavenumber energy sink. With few exceptions,

81: simulations of such a cascade confirm the $k^{-5/3}$ energy spectrum

82: initially predicted \cite{K67} on the basis of scale invariance. But one set

83: of simulations \cite{BDF95} finds strong intermittency in fourth- and

84: higher-order velocity correlations. Other simulations \cite{BCV00} and

85: experiments \cite{PT98}, though, find no significant intermittency. The

86: various studies differ mainly in the precise form of the dissipation terms.

87: The evidence suggests that intermittency in the stationary inverse cascade,

88: permitted by our theory, is at least possibly realized.

89: 

90: It is our restricted focus on the inverse cascade that allows us to work with

91: a purely local field theory. The random force that stirs the fluid is

92: correlated over a limited range and is effectively local in a long-distance

93: description. As with the RG treatment of quantum fields and condensed matter,

94: we expect all short-distance details to become irrelevant except as they are

95: manifested in local, renormalizable couplings. The two-dimensional direct

96: cascade of enstrophy to high wavenumbers \cite{K67} thus falls outside our

97: scope. A previous RG analysis of two-dimensional turbulence \cite{H98} is

98: formally similar to ours, but it follows three-dimensional studies by

99: adopting the long-range force correlations necessary for a direct cascade;

100: even its derivation of the inverse cascade relies on nonlocal forcing. Here

101: we apply RG methods in the familiar domain of local field theory, which

102: should allow a physical treatment of the inverse cascade. The explanation of

103: the direct enstrophy cascade may rest on entirely different foundations, such

104: as conformal invariance \cite{P93}.

105: 

106: The work most closely aligned with our theoretical approach is due to

107: Forster, Nelson, and Stephen (FNS) \cite{FNS77}. At the technical level, our

108: contribution is to add linear friction to FNS model A in $d = 2$ and compute

109: the RG flow to the next order of perturbation theory, two loops. The

110: inclusion of friction, which dissipates energy at low wavenumbers, makes our

111: theory capable in principle of describing the inverse cascade and its

112: $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum---unlike FNS model A, which gives a $k^1$ spectrum

113: corresponding to energy equipartition in $d = 2$. We also note a difference

114: in our viewpoint from that of FNS and others \cite{DM79,H98,AAV99} who apply

115: RG methods to turbulence by analogy with critical phenomena. These authors

116: seek a controlled IR-stable fixed point by starting with a logarithmically

117: divergent field theory and then decreasing the dimension of space or the

118: exponent of the stirring-force correlation by $\epsilon$. This adds to the

119: $\beta$ function a negative linear term proportional to $\epsilon$. With the

120: usual positive one-loop term, there exists an IR-stable fixed point at a

121: coupling that goes to zero with $\epsilon$; the fixed-point theory can then

122: be expanded in $\epsilon$ instead of the original coupling. Like FNS, we work

123: in $d = 2 - \epsilon$ to regulate UV divergences, but we ultimately take

124: $\epsilon = 0$, so that the fixed point is trivial. Our inverse-cascade model

125: lies not at a fixed point but in the region of large dimensionless coupling.

126: 

127: Naturally the use of perturbation theory is questionable for strong coupling.

128: Our perturbative results will have direct quantitative application only to

129: the extreme IR limit controlled by the trivial fixed point, which is of some

130: interest in itself. Nevertheless, we will make reasonable conjectures about

131: the theory's strong-coupling behavior that are consistent with the inverse

132: cascade, bearing in mind the dangers of the nonperturbative regime. Besides

133: the concern with the numerical accuracy of extrapolations, there are

134: fundamental difficulties at strong coupling. The anomalous dimensions of

135: operators may be large, and the relevance of terms in the action may differ

136: from the weak-coupling case. Furthermore, at strong coupling, there is no

137: simple relation between the couplings in different renormalization schemes,

138: such as the Wilsonian cutoff (useful for physical interpretation) and minimal

139: subtraction (convenient for systematic calculation). We may hope that these

140: subtleties do not affect the main conclusions even at very strong coupling.

141: At least we know that the theory of critical phenomena in $d = 4 - \epsilon$

142: is extrapolated to $\epsilon = 1$ (moderate coupling) with acceptable

143: results.

144: 

145: In Sec.~\ref{Framework} we describe the basis of our theory and our method of

146: calculation, confirming the one-loop RG flow of FNS \cite{FNS77}. In

147: Sec.~\ref{Properties} we present symmetries and other properties of the

148: theory that do not involve a dubious extrapolation to strong coupling. In

149: Sec.~\ref{TwoLoop} we compute the two-loop term of the $\beta$ function. In

150: Sec.~\ref{Cascade} we relate the plausible strong-coupling behavior of the

151: theory to the phenomenology of the inverse cascade. In Sec.~\ref{Burgers}, as

152: a test of our methods, we consider a rather different model, the UV-stirred

153: one-dimensional Burgers equation. A summary and discussion are presented in

154: Sec.~\ref{Discussion}.

155: 

156: \section{\label{Framework}Framework}

157: 

158: \subsection{\label{Path}Path integral for the Navier--Stokes equation}

159: 

160: The Navier--Stokes equation for the velocity field $v_j$ of an incompressible

161: two-dimensional fluid is

162: \begin{equation}

163: \label{NSv}

164: \dot v_j + v_k \nabla_k v_j + \nabla_j P - \nu\nabla^2 v_j + \alpha v_j =

165: f_j,

166: \end{equation}

167: where $P$ is the pressure divided by the density, $\nu$ is the kinematic

168: viscosity, $\alpha$ is the friction coefficient, and $f_j$ is the force per

169: unit mass. The incompressibility condition $\nabla_i v_i = 0$ allows the

170: velocity to be expressed as

171: \begin{equation}

172: v_i = \epsilon_{ij} \nabla_j \psi,

173: \end{equation}

174: where $\psi$ is a pseudoscalar field called the stream function and

175: $\epsilon_{ij}$ is the alternating tensor, which in two dimensions satisfies

176: \begin{equation}

177: \epsilon_{ij} \epsilon_{kl} = \delta_{ik} \delta_{jl} - \delta_{il}

178: \delta_{jk}.

179: \end{equation}

180: Upon writing Eq.~(\ref{NSv}) in terms of $\psi$ and applying the operator

181: $\epsilon_{ij} \nabla_i$, we obtain \cite{H98}

182: \begin{equation}

183: \label{NSpsi}

184: -\nabla^2 \dot\psi - \epsilon_{ij} \nabla_i \nabla^2 \psi \nabla_j \psi +

185: \nu\nabla^4 \psi - \alpha\nabla^2 \psi = \eta.

186: \end{equation}

187: Here

188: \begin{equation}

189: \eta = \bm{\nabla} \times \mathbf{f},

190: \end{equation}

191: with the notation

192: \begin{equation}

193: \mathbf{a} \times \mathbf{b} \equiv \epsilon_{ij} a_i b_j.

194: \end{equation}

195: 

196: In the real three-dimensional world, Eq.~(\ref{NSv}) is a good approximation

197: for a thin fluid film provided either (a) the boundary surface(s) and the

198: coordinate system are rotating rapidly about a perpendicular axis or (b) the

199: fluid is conducting and subject to a strong perpendicular magnetic field

200: \cite{L97}. In either case, boundary-layer effects produce a linear friction

201: parametrized by $\alpha$, which has units of frequency.

202: 

203: For convenience, our field-theory calculations will use the method of

204: dimensional regularization \cite{TV72}, based on continuation to a noninteger

205: spatial dimension $d = 2 - \epsilon$. Because in the end we are concerned

206: only with $d = 2$, we adopt a formal continuation of the Navier--Stokes

207: equation that preserves its two-dimensional features. For general $d$, we

208: retain the stream-function representation by choosing a ``physical''

209: two-dimensional subspace that contains the tensor $\epsilon_{ij}$ and the

210: external wavevectors of correlation functions. Denoting by $\Theta_{ij}$ the

211: projector onto the physical subspace, we now have

212: \begin{equation}

213: \label{epseps}

214: \epsilon_{ij} \epsilon_{kl} = \Theta_{ik} \Theta_{jl} - \Theta_{il}

215: \Theta_{jk}.

216: \end{equation}

217: We take Eq.~(\ref{NSpsi}) as the equation of motion for $\psi$, with

218: $\nabla^2 \equiv \nabla_k \nabla_k$ interpreted as the $d$-dimensional

219: Laplacian. In this way we preserve (for $\nu=\alpha=\eta=0$) the formal

220: conservation of the energy and enstrophy,

221: \begin{align}

222: E &= \tfrac{1}{2} \int d^d x\, \nabla_i \psi \nabla_i \psi,\\

223: \mathnormal{\Omega} &= \tfrac{1}{2} \int d^d x\, \nabla^2 \psi \nabla^2 \psi.

224: \end{align}

225: 

226: We assume that the fluid is stirred by a Gaussian random force that is

227: uncorrelated in time \cite{FNS77}, with

228: \begin{align}

229: \langle f_i(\omega,\mathbf{k})\, f_j(\omega',\mathbf{k}')\rangle =

230: {}&(2\pi)^{d+1} \delta(\omega+\omega')\,

231: \delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}')\nonumber\\

232: \label{forcing}

233: &\times (\delta_{ij} - k_i k_j/k^2)\, D(k^2),

234: \end{align}

235: so that $\eta$ is also Gaussian with

236: \begin{equation}

237: \langle\eta(\omega,\mathbf{k})\, \eta(\omega',\mathbf{k}')\rangle =

238: (2\pi)^{d+1} \delta(\omega+\omega')\, \delta(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}')\, k^2

239: D(k^2).

240: \end{equation}

241: A classical system with random forcing can be treated in the formalism of

242: quantum field theory \cite{MSR73}, including the path-integral representation

243: \cite{BJW76,P77,AVP83}. Upon introduction of a pseudoscalar field $p$

244: conjugate to $\eta$, correlation functions of $\psi$ are given by the path

245: integral

246: \begin{equation}

247: \langle F[\psi]\rangle \propto \int \mathcal{D}\psi\, \mathcal{D}p\,

248: F[\psi]\, e^{-S},

249: \end{equation}

250: with the action

251: \begin{align}

252: S = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl[\tfrac{1}{2} (-\nabla^2 p)\,

253: D(-\nabla^2)p\nonumber\\

254: &+ ip(-\nabla^2 \dot\psi - \epsilon_{ij} \nabla_i \nabla^2 \psi \nabla_j \psi

255: + \nu\nabla^4 \psi - \alpha\nabla^2 \psi)\bigr]\nonumber\\

256: = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl[\tfrac{1}{2} (-\nabla^2 p)\, D(-\nabla^2)p +

257: i\nu p\nabla^4 \psi\nonumber\\

258: \label{Sppsi}

259: &- i\alpha p\nabla^2 \psi - ip\nabla^2 \dot\psi - i\epsilon_{ij} \nabla_i

260: \nabla_k p \nabla_j \psi \nabla_k \psi\bigr],

261: \end{align}

262: where we have integrated the $p\psi\psi$ term by parts. The Jacobian

263: determinant from changing variables from $\eta$ to $\psi$ is an unimportant

264: constant by virtue of causality \cite{AVP83}.

265: 

266: \subsection{\label{Relevance}Relevance of couplings}

267: 

268: In the field theory based on the action (\ref{Sppsi}), the long-distance

269: behavior is governed by just the renormalizable terms---those with

270: coefficients whose scaling dimensions with respect to wavenumber in $d = 2$

271: are zero (marginal) or positive (relevant) \cite{Z96}. We assign scaling

272: dimensions $d_\psi$, $d_p$, $d_t$ to the fields $\psi$ and $p$ and to the

273: time $t$ by requiring that the highest-derivative quadratic terms in the

274: action have dimensionless coefficients in $d = 2$, since these terms control

275: the asymptotic behavior of propagators and thus the UV convergence or

276: divergence of diagrams. Because of the additional derivatives, the viscous

277: term $i\nu p\nabla^4 \psi$ is clearly less relevant than the friction term

278: $-i\alpha p\nabla^2 \psi$. In fact, it is commonly said that viscosity is

279: irrelevant to the inverse cascade, but we now show that this cannot be taken

280: in the technical sense. If the viscous term is ignored, then the $p\nabla^2

281: \psi$ and $p\nabla^2 \dot\psi$ terms have dimensionless coefficients only if

282: $d_t = 0$ and $d_\psi = -d_p$. For a nontrivial theory, the $p\psi\psi$ term

283: must be renormalizable, giving $2 \ge 4 + d_p + 2d_\psi = 4 - d_p$. With $d_p

284: \ge 2$, there exists no local renormalizable forcing term quadratic in $p$.

285: 

286: Let us therefore retain the viscous term and recompute the scaling

287: dimensions. The $p\nabla^4 \psi$ and $p\nabla^2 \dot\psi$ terms possess

288: dimensionless coefficients only if $d_t = -2$ and $d_\psi = -d_p$.

289: Renormalizability of the $p\psi\psi$ term now gives $4 \ge 4 + d_p + 2d_\psi

290: = 4 - d_p$, so that $d_p \ge 0$. It remains to specify the forcing term. We

291: assume that the external forcing is confined to a band of high wavenumbers,

292: as in model C of FNS \cite{FNS77}. The effective forcing at low wavenumbers

293: is generated by renormalization; because the interaction in Eq.~(\ref{Sppsi})

294: has two spatial derivatives acting on $p$, at least two derivatives must

295: accompany each factor of $p$ in any term so generated. The only

296: renormalizable forcing term is then $\frac{1}{2} D_0 \nabla^2 p \nabla^2 p$,

297: whose coefficient is dimensionless for $d_p = d_\psi = 0$. This effective

298: forcing has $D(k^2) = D_0 k^2$, as in model A of FNS. All terms in the action

299: are now marginal, except for the friction term, which is relevant

300: (coefficient of dimension $2$). The only other renormalizable terms that

301: could be generated are ones containing only $\psi$, but these are not

302: generated (see Sec.~\ref{Feynman}).

303: 

304: Next we label the fields and the time in Eq.~(\ref{Sppsi}) with the subscript

305: ``phys'' and introduce rescaled variables to simplify the action. Tentatively

306: seeking to set all coefficients other than forcing and friction equal to $1$,

307: we take

308: \begin{equation}

309: \begin{aligned}

310: \label{altpsipt}

311: \psi_{\text{phys}} &= \nu\psi, & p_{\text{phys}} &= \nu^{-1} p, &

312: t_{\text{phys}} &= \nu^{-1} t.

313: \end{aligned}

314: \end{equation}

315: The result is

316: \begin{align}

317: S = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl(\tfrac{1}{2} g^2 \nabla^2 p \nabla^2 p +

318: ip\nabla^4 \psi\nonumber\\

319: \label{Sippsi}

320: &- i\nu^{-1} \alpha p\nabla^2 \psi - ip\nabla^2 \dot\psi - i\epsilon_{ij}

321: \nabla_i \nabla_k p \nabla_j \psi \nabla_k \psi\bigr),

322: \end{align}

323: where

324: \begin{equation}

325: g = D_0^{1/2} \nu^{-3/2}.

326: \end{equation}

327: We adopt, however, a different rescaling that will be particularly convenient

328: in Sec.~\ref{FDT}:

329: \begin{equation}

330: \begin{aligned}

331: \label{ppsit}

332: \psi_{\text{phys}} &= g\nu\psi, & p_{\text{phys}} &= (g\nu)^{-1} p, &

333: t_{\text{phys}} &= (g\nu)^{-1} t.

334: \end{aligned}

335: \end{equation}

336: The final form of the action is then

337: \begin{align}

338: S = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl(\tfrac{1}{2} g^{-1} \nabla^2 p \nabla^2 p +

339: ig^{-1} p\nabla^4 \psi\nonumber\\

340: \label{Sfppsi}

341: &- i\rho p\nabla^2 \psi - ip\nabla^2 \dot\psi - i\epsilon_{ij} \nabla_i

342: \nabla_k p \nabla_j \psi \nabla_k \psi\bigr),

343: \end{align}

344: where

345: \begin{equation}

346: \rho = (g\nu)^{-1} \alpha = D_0^{-1/2} \nu^{1/2} \alpha.

347: \end{equation}

348: For general $d = 2 - \epsilon$, the scaling dimensions in Eq.~(\ref{Sfppsi})

349: are

350: \begin{equation}

351: \label{deps}

352: \begin{aligned}

353: d_\psi = d_p &= -\tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon, & d_t &= -2 + \tfrac{1}{2}

354: \epsilon,\\

355: d_g &= +\tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon, & d_\rho &= +2 - \tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon.

356: \end{aligned}

357: \end{equation}

358: In two dimensions, $g$ is a dimensionless coupling and $\rho$ is analogous to

359: a mass parameter in quantum field theory.

360: 

361: \subsection{\label{Feynman}Feynman rules}

362: 

363: \begin{figure}

364: \includegraphics{icfig1.eps}%

365: \caption{\label{FeynRules}Feynman rules for the action

366: (\protect\ref{Sfppsi}).}

367: \end{figure}

368: 

369: Correlation functions can be calculated for the action (\ref{Sfppsi}) using

370: Feynman diagrams whose lines carry both frequencies and wavevectors. We

371: represent the fields $\psi$ and $p$ by wiggly and plain lines respectively.

372: The ingredients of the diagrams, shown in Fig.~\ref{FeynRules}, are the

373: propagators $\langle p\psi\rangle_0$, $\langle\psi\psi\rangle_0$, obtained

374: from the quadratic terms in the action, and the vertex factor

375: $-\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}_0$, obtained from the cubic term. We label these

376: quantities with the subscript $0$ because they are the tree-level

377: contributions to the exact two-point correlation functions $\langle

378: p\psi\rangle$, $\langle\psi\psi\rangle$ and the exact three-point

379: one-particle-irreducible (1PI) function $-\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}$.

380: 

381: The remaining contributions arise from diagrams containing loops. For these

382: diagrams, we integrate over each loop frequency and wavevector according to

383: \begin{equation}

384: \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}.

385: \end{equation}

386: Because the integrand is a rational function of the frequencies, the $\omega$

387: integrations can easily be performed by the contour method before integrating

388: over wavevectors. This contour integration shows that a 1PI diagram (or

389: subdiagram) vanishes if all its external lines are $\psi$ \cite{AVP83}, since

390: there is a closed loop of $\langle p\psi\rangle_0$ propagators and the

391: integrand is an analytic function of the loop frequency in the upper

392: half-plane.

393: 

394: Unlike many field theories in a low number of spatial dimensions, ours does

395: not contain IR divergences even for $\rho = 0$. This is because, after

396: integration over frequencies, internal-line propagators scale as $k^{-2}$,

397: but at least one further factor of the wavevector arises from each of the two

398: vertices that a line connects. Hence the integrand does not diverge as the

399: wavevector of any internal line goes to zero. The frequencies and wavevectors

400: of the external lines act as an IR cutoff. For simplicity, our calculations

401: will adopt another IR cutoff by assuming that $\rho > 0$; then 1PI diagrams

402: are analytic at zero external frequencies and wavevectors.

403: 

404: \subsection{\label{OneLoop}One-loop renormalization}

405: 

406: \begin{figure}

407: \includegraphics{icfig2.eps}%

408: \caption{\label{1L1PI}One-loop diagrams for the two-point 1PI functions

409: $-\Gamma^{\psi p}$ and $-\Gamma^{pp}$ at zero frequency.}

410: \end{figure}

411: 

412: The coefficients of the quadratic terms in the action (with frequency $\chi$

413: and wavevector $\mathbf{q}$) are

414: \begin{align}

415: \Gamma^{\psi p}_0 &= q^2 (\chi + i\rho + ig^{-1} q^2),\\

416: \Gamma^{pp}_0 &= g^{-1} q^4.

417: \end{align}

418: These are corrected at one loop by the two-point 1PI diagrams in

419: Fig.~\ref{1L1PI}. Because of the external wavevectors in the vertex factors,

420: the diagrams are $O(q^4)$, and so we can set $\chi = 0$. We now demonstrate

421: the computation of the $-\Gamma^{\psi p}_1$ diagram, to show the basic

422: methods to be used for two-loop diagrams in Sec.~\ref{TwoLoop}.

423: 

424: The frequency integral of the propagators is

425: \begin{align}

426: I &\equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \bigl[g^{-1} k^{-2}

427: (\omega + i\rho + ig^{-1} k^2)^{-1}\nonumber\\

428: &\times (\omega + i\rho + ig^{-1} |\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}|^2)^{-1} (\omega -

429: i\rho - ig^{-1} |\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}|^2)^{-1}\bigr]\nonumber\\

430: &= \frac{-ig/4k^2}{(g\rho + k^2 - \mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q} + \frac{1}{2}q^2)

431: (g\rho + k^2 - 2\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q} + q^2)},

432: \end{align}

433: obtained conveniently by closing the contour in the upper half-plane and

434: picking up one pole. We next multiply by the vertex factors and expand to

435: $O(q^4)$:

436: \begin{align}

437: i(k^2 - 2\mathbf{k}&\cdot\mathbf{q}) (\mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{q})\,

438: i(2\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q} - q^2) (\mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{q})\,

439: I\nonumber\\

440: = {}&(k^2 - 2\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q}) (q^2 - 2\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})

441: [k^2_\parallel q^2 - (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2] I\nonumber\\

442: \to {}&\frac{6ig (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2 [k^2_\parallel q^2 -

443: (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2]} {4(g\rho + k^2)^3}\nonumber\\

444: \label{q4}

445: &- \frac{ig [k^2 q^2 + 4(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2] [k^2_\parallel q^2 -

446: (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2]}{4k^2 (g\rho + k^2)^2},

447: \end{align}

448: where $k^2_\parallel \equiv \Theta_{ij} k_i k_j$ is the squared projection of

449: $\mathbf{k}$ onto the physical subspace and we infer from Eq.~(\ref{epseps})

450: that

451: \begin{equation}

452: (\mathbf{k} \times \mathbf{q})^2 = k^2_\parallel q^2 - (\mathbf{k} \cdot

453: \mathbf{q})^2.

454: \end{equation}

455: We omit $O(q^3)$ terms in Eq.~(\ref{q4}) because they will now disappear when

456: we average over directions of $\mathbf{k}$.

457: 

458: With the $d$-dimensional isotropization formulas

459: \begin{equation}

460: \begin{aligned}

461: k_i k_j &\to k^2 \frac{\delta_{ij}}{d}, & k_i k_j k_k k_l &\to k^4

462: \frac{\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl} + \delta_{ik}\delta_{jl} +

463: \delta_{il}\delta_{jk}}{d(d+2)},

464: \end{aligned}

465: \end{equation}

466: which imply

467: \begin{equation}

468: \begin{aligned}

469: \label{isotrop}

470: k^2_\parallel &\to \frac{2k^2}{d}, & (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2 &\to

471: \frac{k^2 q^2}{d},\\

472: (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^2 k^2_\parallel &\to \frac{4k^4 q^2}{d(d + 2)}, &

473: (\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{q})^4 &\to \frac{3k^4 q^4}{d(d + 2)},

474: \end{aligned}

475: \end{equation}

476: the value of the diagram to $O(q^4)$ becomes

477: \begin{align}

478: -\Gamma^{\psi p}_1 = {}&{-}igq^4\nonumber\\

479: &\times \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{(2\pi)^d}

480: \frac{2\pi^{d/2}k^{d-1}}{\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}d)} k^2 \frac{(6 + d) g\rho +

481: dk^2} {4d(d + 2) (g\rho + k^2)^3}\nonumber\\

482: = {}&{-}igq^4\frac{6 - d}{(2 + d) 2^{4+d}\, \Gamma(\frac{1}{2}d)

483: \sin(\frac{1}{2}\pi d)} \left(\frac{\pi}{g\rho}\right)^{1-d/2}.

484: \end{align}

485: For $d = 2 - \epsilon$ with $\epsilon \to 0$, we find

486: \begin{equation}

487: \label{1Lpsip}

488: +\Gamma^{\psi p}_1 = igq^4 \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} -

489: \frac{\ln(g\rho/4\pi) + \gamma_{\text{E}} - 1}{64\pi} + O(\epsilon)\right),

490: \end{equation}

491: where $\gamma_{\text{E}}$ is the Euler constant. The result for the other

492: one-loop diagram (taking into account the symmetry factor) is very similar:

493: \begin{equation}

494: \label{1Lpp}

495: +\Gamma^{pp}_1 = gq^4 \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} - \frac{\ln(g\rho/4\pi) +

496: \gamma_{\text{E}}}{64\pi} + O(\epsilon)\right).

497: \end{equation}

498: We have carefully obtained the $O(\epsilon^0)$ terms, which will be important

499: in Sec.~\ref{TwoLoop}.

500: 

501: The method of minimal subtraction \cite{T73} expresses the bare couplings $g$

502: and $\rho$, of respective dimensions $\frac{1}{2}\epsilon$ and $2 -

503: \frac{1}{2}\epsilon$, in terms of a renormalization scale $\mu$ (dimension

504: $1$) and dimensionless renormalized couplings $\bar g$ and $\bar\rho$ as

505: \begin{align}

506: g &= \mu^{\epsilon/2} \bigl[\bar g + \bar g^3 a_1 \epsilon^{-1} + O(\bar

507: g^5)\bigr],\\

508: \rho &= \mu^{2-\epsilon/2} \bar\rho,

509: \end{align}

510: where the corrections (called counterterms) involve only negative powers of

511: $\epsilon$. The coefficient of the $O(\bar g^3)$ counterterm, and the absence

512: of any counterterms for $\bar\rho$, are obtained by requiring that

513: $\Gamma^{\psi p}$ and $\Gamma^{pp}$ to $O(q^4)$ be finite at $\epsilon = 0$

514: when expressed in terms of $\bar g$ and $\bar\rho$:

515: \begin{alignat}{2}

516: \Gamma^{\psi p} = {}&q^2 (\chi + i\rho)\span\span\nonumber\\

517: &+ iq^4 \left[g^{-1} + g \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} + O(\epsilon^0)\right)

518: + O(g^3)\right]\span\span\nonumber\\

519: = {}&q^2 (\chi + i\mu^{2-\epsilon/2} \bar\rho)\span\span\nonumber\\

520: &+ {}& &iq^4 \mu^{-\epsilon/2}\nonumber\\

521: &&&\times \left[\bar g^{-1} + \bar g \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} -

522: \frac{a_1}{\epsilon} + O(\epsilon^0)\right) + O(\bar g^3)\right],

523: \displaybreak[0]\\

524: \Gamma^{pp} = {}&q^4 \mu^{-\epsilon/2}\span\span\nonumber\\

525: &\times \left[\bar g^{-1} + \bar g \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} -

526: \frac{a_1}{\epsilon} + O(\epsilon^0)\right) + O(\bar g^3)\right].\span\span

527: \end{alignat}

528: Hence

529: \begin{equation}

530: a_1 = \frac{1}{32\pi},

531: \end{equation}

532: and no counterterms of any order are needed for $\bar\rho$ because the $q^2$

533: term of $\Gamma^{\psi p}$ is not renormalized.

534: 

535: As for the three-point 1PI function $-\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}$, we will see in

536: Sec.~\ref{Galilean} that it is related by Galilean invariance to the

537: $q^2\chi$ term of $\Gamma^{\psi p}$. Because the latter term is not

538: renormalized, we have

539: \begin{equation}

540: -\Gamma^{\psi\psi p} = -\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}_0 = i(k_1^2 - k_2^2) \mathbf{k}_1

541: \times \mathbf{k}_2,

542: \end{equation}

543: up to irrelevant terms with more factors of wavevector. We have thus rendered

544: the theory finite at one loop by renormalizing only the coupling $\bar g$,

545: without the need for counterterms to rescale the fields $\psi$ and $p$ or the

546: time $t$. Crucial for this was the equality of the $1/32\pi\epsilon$ terms in

547: Eqs.\ (\ref{1Lpsip}) and (\ref{1Lpp}). We conclude that the anomalous

548: dimensions are zero at one loop, and in Sec.~\ref{FDT} we will show that in

549: minimal subtraction they are exactly zero,

550: \begin{equation}

551: \gamma_\psi = \gamma_p = \gamma_t = 0.

552: \end{equation}

553: In a different renormalization scheme, or with a different definition of the

554: fields and the time such as Eq.~(\ref{altpsipt}), the anomalous dimensions

555: would not vanish identically, but at any RG fixed point their values are

556: universal \cite{Z96} and so they would be zero there.

557: 

558: The $\beta$ functions for the dimensionless couplings are determined by the

559: RG invariance of the bare couplings,

560: \begin{equation}

561: \left(\mu \frac{\partial}{\partial\mu} + \beta(\bar g)

562: \frac{\partial}{\partial\bar g} + \beta(\bar\rho)

563: \frac{\partial}{\partial\bar\rho}\right) \begin{Bmatrix} g\\ \rho

564: \end{Bmatrix} = 0.

565: \end{equation}

566: We obtain

567: \begin{align}

568: \beta(\bar g) &= -\tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon \bar g + \frac{\bar g^3}{32\pi} +

569: O(\bar g^5),\\

570: \beta(\bar\rho) &= \bigl(-2 + \tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon\bigr) \bar\rho.

571: \end{align}

572: The force correlation adopted by FNS \cite{FNS77} differs from

573: Eq.~(\ref{forcing}) by a factor of $2$, and consequently the dimensionless

574: coupling of FNS is $\bar\lambda = 2^{-1/2} \bar g$. Thus we have confirmed

575: the FNS result

576: \begin{equation}

577: \beta(\bar\lambda) = -\tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon \bar\lambda +

578: \frac{\bar\lambda^3}{16\pi} + O(\bar\lambda^5).

579: \end{equation}

580: 

581: \section{\label{Properties}General properties}

582: 

583: \subsection{\label{Galilean}Galilean invariance}

584: 

585: In two dimensions, the equation of motion (\ref{NSpsi}) and thus the action

586: (\ref{Sfppsi}) have the important physical property of invariance under a

587: Galilean transformation to a reference frame moving with constant velocity

588: $\mathbf{u}$ \cite{FNS77,DM79,AVP83}. This property depends on the assumption

589: that the stirring force is uncorrelated in time, since otherwise there would

590: exist a link between a point in space at one time and a ``corresponding''

591: point in space at a different time. Specifically, the action (\ref{Sfppsi})

592: is invariant under the transformation

593: \begin{equation}

594: \begin{aligned}

595: \label{GalTrans}

596: \psi(t, \mathbf{x}) &\to \psi(t, \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{u}t) + \epsilon_{ij}

597: x_i u_j,\\

598: p(t, \mathbf{x}) &\to p(t,\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{u}t),

599: \end{aligned}

600: \end{equation}

601: which induces the familiar transformation of the velocity,

602: \begin{equation}

603: \mathbf{v}(t, \mathbf{x}) \to \mathbf{v}(t, \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{u}t) -

604: \mathbf{u}.

605: \end{equation}

606: The original Navier--Stokes equation (\ref{NSv}) is not Galilean invariant

607: because of the friction term, which introduces a preferred state of rest; but

608: the differentiation in deriving the stream-function equation (\ref{NSpsi})

609: eliminates the constant shift in $\mathbf{v}$ \cite{H98}.

610: 

611: We would not expect Galilean invariance in $d = 2$ to be preserved by our

612: renormalization method unless the theory remains Galilean invariant when

613: dimensionally regulated. We now show that our formal stream-function

614: representation in arbitrary $d$ is invariant under the transformation

615: (\ref{GalTrans}), provided that $\mathbf{u}$ lies in the physical subspace.

616: For convenience we use the infinitesimal form

617: \begin{equation}

618: \begin{aligned}

619: \label{InfGalTrans}

620: \delta\psi &= t u_i \nabla_i \psi + \epsilon_{ij} x_i u_j, & \delta p &= t

621: u_i \nabla_i p.

622: \end{aligned}

623: \end{equation}

624: In the corresponding variation of the action (\ref{Sfppsi}), terms

625: proportional to $t$ vanish automatically because they correspond to a simple

626: spatial translation. The interesting terms are those where the $t$ is

627: differentiated ($-ip \nabla^2 \dot\psi$) and where $\psi$ is varied by

628: $\epsilon_{ij} x_i u_j$. Neither of these affects the forcing, viscous, or

629: friction terms, which contain $\psi$ only as $\nabla^2 \psi$ and are

630: trivially invariant. We are left with

631: \begin{align}

632: \delta S = -\int dt\, d^d x\, (&ipu_i \nabla_i \nabla^2 \psi + i\epsilon_{ij}

633: \nabla_i \nabla_k p\, \epsilon_{jl} u_l \nabla_k \psi\nonumber\\

634: &+ i\epsilon_{ij} \nabla_i \nabla_k p \nabla_j \psi\, \epsilon_{kl} u_l).

635: \end{align}

636: Upon integration by parts and use of $\Theta_{il} u_l = u_i$, the first two

637: terms cancel and the third vanishes.

638: 

639: In Fourier space, the transformation (\ref{InfGalTrans}) becomes

640: \begin{align}

641: \delta\psi(\omega,\mathbf{k}) &= \mathbf{u} \cdot \mathbf{k}\,

642: \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega} \psi(\omega,\mathbf{k}) - i(2\pi)^{d+1}

643: \delta(\omega)\, \mathbf{u} \times \bm{\nabla} \delta(\mathbf{k}),\nonumber\\

644: \delta p(\omega,\mathbf{k}) &= \mathbf{u} \cdot \mathbf{k}\,

645: \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega} p(\omega,\mathbf{k}).

646: \end{align}

647: The action is Galilean invariant by virtue of the relation

648: \begin{equation}

649: \mathbf{u} \cdot \mathbf{k}\, \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega} \Gamma^{\psi

650: p}_0(\omega,\mathbf{k}) = i \mathbf{u} \times \bm{\nabla}' \Gamma^{\psi\psi

651: p}_0(\omega,\mathbf{k}; 0,\mathbf{k}') |_{\mathbf{k}'=\mathbf{0}};

652: \end{equation}

653: both sides equal $\mathbf{u} \cdot \mathbf{k}\, k^2$. The same relation must

654: then hold between the exact 1PI functions: The coefficient of $k^2 \omega$ in

655: $\Gamma^{\psi p}$ equals the coefficient of $-i(k_1^2 - k_2^2) \mathbf{k}_1

656: \times \mathbf{k}_2$ in $\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}$. Since the former is not

657: renormalized, neither is the latter.

658: 

659: \subsection{\label{FDT}Fluctuation-dissipation theorem}

660: 

661: For zero friction ($\rho = 0$), the action (\ref{Sfppsi}) is equivalent to

662: model A of FNS \cite{FNS77}, who note that it obeys detailed balance and thus

663: is subject to a classical fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) \cite{DH75}.

664: A complicated diagrammatic argument demonstrates that the FDT is preserved to

665: all orders of renormalization \cite{DH75}. Here we reach this conclusion by

666: obtaining the FDT from an exact symmetry of the action in arbitrary $d$.

667: Under the formal discrete transformation

668: \begin{equation}

669: p \to p - 2i\psi,

670: \end{equation}

671: the action with $\rho = 0$ changes only by reversing the sign of the viscous

672: term. The change in the interaction term vanishes upon integration by parts,

673: just as in deriving conservation of energy. To restore the sign of the

674: viscous term, we further perform a complete time reversal,

675: \begin{equation}

676: \begin{aligned}

677: t &\to -t, & \psi &\to -\psi,

678: \end{aligned}

679: \end{equation}

680: which naturally reverses the sign of the dissipation. The net effect is the

681: transformation

682: \begin{equation}

683: \begin{aligned}

684: p(t) &\to p(-t) + 2i\psi(-t), & \psi(t) &\to -\psi(-t),

685: \end{aligned}

686: \end{equation}

687: a generalized time reversal that is its own inverse and leaves the action

688: invariant.

689: 

690: The FDT is derived from this symmetry by expressing the invariance of

691: $\langle p\psi\rangle$:

692: \begin{equation}

693: \label{FDTeq}

694: \langle p\psi\rangle = -\langle\psi p\rangle - 2i \langle\psi\psi\rangle.

695: \end{equation}

696: By invariance under time translations and spatial rotations, negating the

697: times in a two-point correlation function is equivalent to interchanging the

698: points. As a first application of the FDT, we make use of the theorem that

699: the equal-time correlation function $\langle p\psi\rangle_= = \langle\psi

700: p\rangle_=$ is exact at tree level \cite{AVP83}. Thus, for $\rho = 0$, the

701: exact equal-time stream-function correlation is

702: \begin{align}

703: \langle\psi\psi\rangle_= &= \tfrac{1}{2}i \bigl(\langle p\psi\rangle_= +

704: \langle\psi p\rangle_=\bigr)\nonumber\\

705: &= \tfrac{1}{2}i \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \bigl(\langle

706: p\psi\rangle_0 + \langle\psi p\rangle_0\bigr)\nonumber\\

707: &= \tfrac{1}{2}i \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

708: \frac{-2ig^{-1}}{\omega^2 + g^{-2} k^4} = \frac{1}{2k^2}.

709: \end{align}

710: The energy spectrum, in the units implied by Eq.~(\ref{ppsit}), is then

711: \begin{equation}

712: E(k) = \frac{\pi k}{(2\pi)^2} k^2 \langle\psi\psi\rangle_= = \frac{k}{8\pi}.

713: \end{equation}

714: This is an equipartition spectrum, in agreement with FNS model A

715: \cite{FNS77}.

716: 

717: For $\rho = 0$, the FDT (\ref{FDTeq}) also implies that, if $\langle

718: p\psi\rangle$ and thus $\langle\psi p\rangle$ are made finite by

719: renormalizing $\bar g$, then $\langle\psi\psi\rangle$ is likewise finite,

720: without the need for field or time rescalings. As we have seen, the

721: three-point 1PI function is automatically finite. Hence the anomalous

722: dimensions vanish exactly for $\rho = 0$. But in minimal subtraction, the

723: counterterms for rescalings and for dimensionless couplings are independent

724: of the mass parameter \cite{T73}. We conclude that in minimal subtraction,

725: even with friction,

726: \begin{equation}

727: \gamma_\psi = \gamma_p = \gamma_t = 0,

728: \end{equation}

729: and $\beta(\bar g)$ depends only on $\bar g$. Indeed, we have seen these

730: statements verified to one loop in Sec.~\ref{OneLoop}.

731: 

732: \subsection{\label{RG}Renormalization-group flows}

733: 

734: We have shown that the anomalous dimensions vanish, and that the renormalized

735: couplings in exactly two dimensions obey

736: \begin{align}

737: \label{RGgbar}

738: \mu \frac{d\bar g}{d\mu} &\equiv \beta(\bar g) = \frac{\bar g^3}{32\pi} +

739: O(\bar g^5),\\

740: \label{RGrhobar}

741: \bar\rho &= \mu^{-2} \rho.

742: \end{align}

743: Thus $\bar\rho$ is very simply related to $\mu$ and can be used to

744: parametrize it. In the RG flow to low wavenumbers, $\bar\rho$ steadily

745: increases as friction becomes more important. Meanwhile, $\bar g$ flows in

746: its own characteristic way regardless of the value of $\bar\rho$; the most we

747: can say is that once $\bar g$ becomes small, it decreases further and

748: further, approaching zero in the IR limit. The solution of Eq.~(\ref{RGgbar})

749: in this limit is

750: \begin{equation}

751: \begin{aligned}

752: \bar g(\mu) &= \sqrt{\frac{16\pi}{\ln(k_g/\mu)}} & (\mu &\ll k_g),

753: \end{aligned}

754: \end{equation}

755: where $k_g$ is the scale at which $\bar g$ becomes large.

756: 

757: In the IR limit, we expect good accuracy from perturbative results such as

758: the tree-level expression for the energy spectrum,

759: \begin{equation}

760: \label{Ekp}

761: E(k) = \frac{\pi k}{(2\pi)^2} k^2 \langle\psi\psi\rangle_= =

762: \frac{k^3}{8\pi(g\rho + k^2)}.

763: \end{equation}

764: We might suppose that the true asymptotic behavior is given by replacing $g$

765: with the renormalized coupling $\bar g(k)$. This would follow from RG theory

766: if the loop corrections to Eq.~(\ref{Ekp}) contained $\ln(k^2)$. But with

767: $g\rho$ providing an IR cutoff, the diagrams are regular as $k \to 0$ and

768: instead contain $\ln(g\rho)$. Hence, for the purposes of correlation

769: functions, the RG flow effectively halts for wavenumbers below the ``mass''

770: $\sqrt{g\rho}$. If $m$ is the suitably renormalized value of this mass, then

771: as $k \to 0$ we expect that

772: \begin{equation}

773: \label{Ekp1}

774: E(k) = \frac{k^3}{8\pi\rho\, \bar g(m)}.

775: \end{equation}

776: On the other hand, in the bare tree-level result (\ref{Ekp}), $g$ can be

777: interpreted as a coupling renormalized at a very high wavenumber (the forcing

778: scale or UV cutoff). With $\beta(\bar g) > 0$, we have $\bar g(m) < g$, and

779: so the RG result (\ref{Ekp1}) gives a greater $E(k)$ at low $k$. Whereas the

780: bare tree-level calculation ignores all interactions between scales, the

781: effect of renormalization is to place more energy and dissipation at low $k$

782: (and therefore less at high $k$), consistent with the inverse cascade.

783: 

784: From Eq.~(\ref{RGrhobar}), any RG fixed point $(\bar g_*,\bar\rho_*)$ must

785: have $\bar\rho_* = 0$. Not only do the anomalous dimensions vanish at any

786: fixed point, but for $\bar\rho = 0$ we have the exact equipartition spectrum

787: $E(k) \propto k^1$, whether $\bar g$ is at a fixed point or not. It is clear

788: that, despite the suggestive evidence of scale invariance of the inverse

789: cascade, an RG fixed point in our framework cannot be the explanation for the

790: observed $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum. Nevertheless our theory contains all the

791: essential ingredients that have produced the stationary inverse cascade

792: experimentally and numerically. A natural explanation is that the $k^{-5/3}$

793: spectrum arises from the nonperturbative behavior of correlation functions at

794: $\bar\rho > 0$ and at large values of $\bar g$ that flow rapidly with scale.

795: Although it is far from obvious how such an RG flow can produce approximate

796: scale invariance with an effective anomalous dimension, we are motivated to

797: seek hints about the theory's strong-coupling behavior. The first step, which

798: can be useful for more mundane purposes as well, is to extend the

799: renormalization to the next order of perturbation theory.

800: 

801: \section{\label{TwoLoop}Two-loop renormalization}

802: 

803: \subsection{\label{Prescrip}Renormalization prescription and diagrams}

804: 

805: Calculating $\beta(\bar g)$ consistently to two loops requires a precise

806: specification of the renormalization scheme. Remarkably, though, as long as

807: $\beta(\bar g)$ depends only on $\bar g$, the $\beta$ function to two loops

808: (but no further) is independent of the particular scheme chosen \cite{Z96}.

809: As in Sec.~\ref{OneLoop}, we take $\rho > 0$, compute two-point 1PI diagrams

810: to $O(q^4)$ expanded about $\epsilon = 0$, and renormalize by minimal

811: subtraction. The two-loop expression for the bare coupling in terms of the

812: renormalized coupling is

813: \begin{equation}

814: \label{2Lg}

815: g = \mu^{\epsilon/2} \bigl[\bar g + \bar g^3 a_1 \epsilon^{-1} + \bar g^5

816: (a_2 \epsilon^{-2} + a_2' \epsilon^{-1}) + O(\bar g^7)\bigr].

817: \end{equation}

818: With zero anomalous dimensions, $\beta(\bar g)$ is the only RG function to be

819: determined and we need only compute a single 1PI function to two loops. Below

820: we will choose $-\Gamma^{pp}$ because its two-loop diagrams are technically

821: simpler than those of $-\Gamma^{\psi p}$.

822: 

823: We have seen that $g\rho$, which has dimension $2$ independent of $\epsilon$,

824: acts as the IR cutoff for wavevector integrals. By dimensional analysis,

825: $\Gamma^{pp}$ to $O(q^4)$ has the form

826: \begin{alignat}{2}

827: \Gamma^{pp} &= q^4 &&\biggl[g^{-1} + g (g\rho)^{-\epsilon/2}

828: \left(\frac{b_1}{\epsilon} + b_1' + O(\epsilon)\right)\nonumber\\

829: &&&+ g^3 (g\rho)^{-\epsilon} \left(\frac{b_2}{\epsilon^2} +

830: \frac{b_2'}{\epsilon} + O(\epsilon^0)\right) + O(g^5)\biggr]\nonumber\\

831: &= q^4 &&\biggl[g^{-1} + g \left(\frac{b_1}{\epsilon} + b_1' - \tfrac{1}{2}

832: b_1 \ln(g\rho) + O(\epsilon)\right)\nonumber\\

833: \label{2Lpp}

834: &&&+ g^3 \left(\frac{b_2}{\epsilon^2} + \frac{b_2' - b_2

835: \ln(g\rho)}{\epsilon} + O(\epsilon^0)\right) + O(g^5)\biggr].

836: \end{alignat}

837: To simplify the two-loop calculations we formally set $\rho = g^{-1}$ and

838: restore the $\ln(g\rho)$ terms at the end.

839: 

840: \begin{figure}

841: \includegraphics{icfig3.eps}%

842: \caption{\label{2L1PI}Nonvanishing two-loop diagrams for the two-point 1PI

843: function $-\Gamma^{pp}$. Along with the overall divergence, each diagram has

844: at most one divergent subdiagram (bold lines).}

845: \end{figure}

846: 

847: Multiloop diagrams can be characterized by their overall UV divergence (as

848: all loop frequencies and wavenumbers go to infinity together) and their

849: subdivergences (as a subset of loop frequencies and wavenumbers go to

850: infinity while the rest remain finite). Overlapping divergences occur when

851: two or more divergent subdiagrams share a propagator; this is a definite

852: complication in evaluating a diagram, though not insurmountable \cite{Z96}.

853: Some two-loop diagrams for the 1PI function $-\Gamma^{\psi p}$ contain

854: overlapping divergences, so we choose to calculate the diagrams for

855: $-\Gamma^{pp}$, which fortunately do not (Fig.~\ref{2L1PI}). A three-point

856: 1PI subdiagram is divergent only if its external lines are $\psi\psi p$, two

857: wiggly and one plain; Galilean invariance does not eliminate this

858: subdivergence when we treat each two-loop diagram separately, because the

859: finiteness of $-\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}_1$ results from a sum over distinct

860: one-loop diagrams. In Fig.~\ref{2L1PI} we have omitted one conceivable

861: diagram containing the 1PI subdiagram $-\Gamma^{\psi\psi}_1$, which vanishes

862: as noted in Sec.~\ref{Feynman}.

863: 

864: Previous two-loop calculations of similar complexity have been made for

865: different problems using diagrams of the same topology: the

866: Burgers--Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation for interface growth \cite{FT94} and

867: the Navier--Stokes equation in more than two physical dimensions, where there

868: are fewer divergences \cite{AAKV03}.

869: 

870: \subsection{\label{Analytic}Analytic calculations}

871: 

872: We have programmed \textsc{mathematica} \cite{W99} to automate the steps in

873: evaluating each two-loop diagram. The loop frequencies are integrated one

874: after the other by adding the residues of all poles in the upper half-plane.

875: The resulting integrand, containing the external wavevector $\mathbf{q}$ and

876: the loop wavevectors $\mathbf{k}_{1,2}$, is expanded to $O(q^4)$ and averaged

877: over directions of $\mathbf{q}$ in the physical subspace. The numerator of

878: the integrand is now rife with the projector $\Theta_{ij}$, both from

879: averaging $q_i q_j$ and from applying Eq.~(\ref{epseps}) to cross products.

880: To eliminate $\Theta_{ij}$, we average the integrand over orientations of the

881: physical subspace within $d$-dimensional space: We introduce an orthonormal

882: physical basis, write $\Theta_{ij} = \hat a_i \hat a_j + \hat b_i \hat b_j$,

883: average over directions of $\hat{\mathbf{a}}$ in the $d - 1$ dimensions

884: perpendicular to $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$, and then average over directions of

885: $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ in $d$-dimensional space. The result is a function of

886: $k_1^2$, $k_2^2$, and $\mathbf{k}_1 \cdot \mathbf{k}_2$ to be integrated over

887: $d^d k_1\, d^d k_2$.

888: 

889: Because we need only the divergent parts of the two-loop diagrams as

890: indicated in Eq.~(\ref{2Lpp}), we eliminate numerator terms that produce

891: neither an overall divergence nor a subdivergence by power counting. We seek

892: to integrate first over the loop wavevector (say $\mathbf{k}_1$) associated

893: with the subdivergence (if any). To simplify the denominator, Feynman

894: parameters \cite{Z96} are introduced, and $\mathbf{k}_1$ is translated by a

895: multiple of $\mathbf{k}_2$. After the numerator is isotropized, the

896: $\mathbf{k}_1$ integration is done analytically; there remains an integral

897: over Feynman parameters and over the magnitude $k_2$. From Eq.~(\ref{2Lpp}),

898: the integrand (excluding $g^3 q^4$) has dimension $-1 - 2\epsilon$. The part

899: that behaves like $k_2^{-1-2\epsilon}$ as $k_2 \to \infty$ is subtracted and

900: separately integrated over $k_2$, producing another $\epsilon^{-1}$ factor;

901: all the $\epsilon^{-2}$ terms arise here and are found analytically, but the

902: $\epsilon^{-1}$ terms involve intractable Feynman-parameter integrals.

903: Meanwhile, the remaining subtracted integral converges at $k_2 = \infty$ but

904: contains analytically integrable $\epsilon^{-1}$ poles from the

905: $\mathbf{k}_1$ integration.

906: 

907: Adding the divergent parts of the eight diagrams gives

908: \begin{align}

909: \Gamma^{pp}_2 = g^3 q^4 \biggl(&{-}\frac{1}{2048\pi^2 \epsilon^2}\nonumber\\

910: \label{an2Lpp}

911: &+ \frac{-2\ln(4\pi) + 2\gamma_{\text{E}} + 5 + X}{4096\pi^2 \epsilon} +

912: O(\epsilon^0)\biggr).

913: \end{align}

914: Here $X$ is a sum of Feynman-parameter integrals of complicated rational

915: functions with integer coefficients; thus we expect that $X$ may be a

916: rational number. Though we are unable to calculate $X$ analytically,

917: Eq.~(\ref{an2Lpp}) already displays some important features: If the

918: $\epsilon^{-2}$ term were different, the renormalization performed below

919: would become inconsistent \cite{T73}; and if the coefficients of

920: $\gamma_{\text{E}}$ and $\ln(4\pi)$ were different, these constants would

921: (contrary to expectation) appear in the two-loop $\beta$ function.

922: 

923: \subsection{\label{Numerical}Numerical calculations}

924: 

925: We have evaluated $X$ numerically by multidimensional Monte Carlo

926: integration, using the technique of importance sampling \cite{PTVF92} to

927: select more points in the ``corners'' of Feynman-parameter space (with one

928: parameter near $1$ and the others near $0$). This technique improves the

929: statistics because the integrands tend to diverge in these corners (but

930: slowly enough that the integrals converge). We treat the integrals that make

931: up $X$ separately, since they vary in complexity and in number of Feynman

932: parameters. To optimize the precision of the result for $X$ in a given

933: computation time $T$, we reason as follows. The contribution to $X$ from

934: diagram $i$, evaluated with $n_i$ sample points, is obtained with a precision

935: $s_i = \sigma_i n_i^{-1/2}$ in a time $t_i = \tau_i n_i$, where $\sigma_i$

936: and $\tau_i$ are characteristics of the integrand and the computer.

937: Constrained optimization shows that we achieve the best overall precision

938: \begin{equation}

939: S^2 = \sum_i s_i^2

940: \end{equation}

941: in the time

942: \begin{equation}

943: T = \sum_i t_i

944: \end{equation}

945: by choosing

946: \begin{equation}

947: n_i = \frac{T\sigma_i}{\tau_i^{1/2} \sum_j \sigma_j \tau_j^{1/2}}.

948: \end{equation}

949: Short runs are made to estimate $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$, and then the

950: high-precision integrations are performed with this plan. Our computations

951: for a total of $3.6 \times 10^8$ sample points yield

952: \begin{equation}

953: X = -3.995 \pm 0.005,

954: \end{equation}

955: strongly suggesting that the exact value is

956: \begin{equation}

957: X = -4.

958: \end{equation}

959: 

960: With the one-loop result (\ref{1Lpp}) and the two-loop result (\ref{an2Lpp}),

961: we have

962: \begin{multline}

963: \Gamma^{pp} = q^4 \biggl[g^{-1} + g \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} -

964: \frac{\ln(g\rho/4\pi) + \gamma_{\text{E}}}{64\pi} + O(\epsilon)\right)\\

965: + g^3 \left(-\frac{1}{2048\pi^2 \epsilon^2} + \frac{2\ln(g\rho/4\pi) +

966: 2\gamma_{\text{E}} + 1}{4096\pi^2 \epsilon} + O(\epsilon^0)\right)\\

967: + O(g^5)\biggr].

968: \end{multline}

969: By substituting Eq.~(\ref{2Lg}) and requiring a finite expression at

970: $\epsilon = 0$, we determine

971: \begin{equation}

972: \begin{aligned}

973: a_1 &= \frac{1}{32\pi}, & a_2 &= \frac{3}{2048\pi^2}, & a_2' &=

974: -\frac{1}{4096\pi^2}.

975: \end{aligned}

976: \end{equation}

977: The RG invariance of the bare coupling $g$ finally gives

978: \begin{equation}

979: \beta(\bar g) = -\tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon \bar g + \frac{\bar g^3}{32\pi} -

980: \frac{\bar g^5}{2048\pi^2} + O(\bar g^7).

981: \end{equation}

982: This is reminiscent of the $\beta$ function in four-dimensional $\phi^4$

983: theory, where similarly the one-loop term is positive and the two-loop term

984: is negative \cite{Z96}. A positive $\beta$ function that grows too quickly

985: (faster than linearly) at large coupling raises the question of whether the

986: coupling becomes infinite at a large but finite renormalization scale. In our

987: theory this would suggest an absolute limit on the extent of the scaling

988: range for any inverse cascade. To avoid such a fate, the expansion of the

989: $\beta$ function must contain many negative terms to slow its initial

990: superlinear growth. It is pleasing to find such a term already at two loops.

991: 

992: \section{\label{Cascade}Inverse-cascade range}

993: 

994: \subsection{\label{Phenom}Inverse-cascade phenomenology}

995: 

996: The initial prediction of the two-dimensional inverse energy cascade

997: \cite{K67} assumed zero friction and small but nonzero viscosity. Kinetic

998: energy, continually injected at high wavenumbers, is expected to cascade down

999: through a quasisteady inertial range extending to lower and lower wavenumbers

1000: as time passes. Within this range, the assumption of scale invariance implies

1001: the energy spectrum

1002: \begin{equation}

1003: \label{Ek}

1004: E(k) = C\, \mathcal{E}^{2/3} k^{-5/3},

1005: \end{equation}

1006: where $C$ is the two-dimensional Kolmogorov constant and $\mathcal{E}$ is the

1007: rate of energy injection per unit mass. Numerical simulations with zero

1008: friction \cite{FS84,SY93,SY94} confirm this spectrum until the cascade

1009: approaches the minimum wavenumber associated with a finite system. Both

1010: nonstationary behavior and finite-size effects, however, lie outside our

1011: theoretical framework, which treats a fluid of infinite size that has been

1012: stirred for an infinite time. In the absence of friction, such a fluid has an

1013: equipartition spectrum as shown in Sec.~\ref{FDT}.

1014: 

1015: When friction is introduced, it is natural to expect a mirror image of the

1016: viscous energy dissipation at high wavenumbers in the three-dimensional

1017: direct cascade: A stationary inverse cascade should develop, with dissipation

1018: by friction at low wavenumbers $k \sim k_{\text{fr}}$ and with the spectrum

1019: (\ref{Ek}) at wavenumbers $k \gg k_{\text{fr}}$ where dissipation is

1020: unimportant. Dimensional analysis gives

1021: \begin{equation}

1022: k_{\text{fr}} = \mathcal{E}^{-1/2} \alpha^{3/2},

1023: \end{equation}

1024: where $\alpha$ is the friction coefficient \cite{BCV00,DG01}. Several

1025: numerical simulations \cite{SY94,BCV00} and laboratory experiments

1026: \cite{S86,PT98} confirm this picture. Other numerical studies obtain similar

1027: results but are more difficult to relate to our framework, since they modify

1028: the friction term by removing derivatives \cite{BDF95} or by applying

1029: friction only below a cutoff wavenumber \cite{MV91}. We are less concerned

1030: about the common practice of adding derivatives to the viscous term

1031: (hyperviscosity), because such a modified term is irrelevant and the RG flow

1032: should introduce a normal viscous term to replace it. But friction modified

1033: with inverse derivatives (hypofriction) is certainly relevant and is believed

1034: to alter the dynamics of the inverse cascade \cite{SY94,BCV00}. In an extreme

1035: case, hypofriction with eight inverse Laplacians destroys the $k^{-5/3}$

1036: spectrum \cite{B94}. Hypofriction is intended to confine dissipation

1037: explicitly to low wavenumbers; ordinary linear friction accomplishes the same

1038: thing more gently, but makes it difficult in practice to achieve an inertial

1039: range \cite{DG01}. We have used linear friction because it is physically

1040: realistic and leads to a local field theory.

1041: 

1042: For convenience in relating the observed inverse cascade to our field theory

1043: with the action (\ref{Sfppsi}), we adopt units of time in which

1044: \begin{equation}

1045: g\nu \equiv D_0^{1/2} \nu^{-1/2} = 1,

1046: \end{equation}

1047: so that the rescalings in Eq.~(\ref{ppsit}) are trivial. Then the kinematic

1048: viscosity is

1049: \begin{equation}

1050: \label{nug}

1051: \nu = g^{-1},

1052: \end{equation}

1053: the friction coefficient is

1054: \begin{equation}

1055: \label{alpharho}

1056: \alpha = \rho,

1057: \end{equation}

1058: and the force correlation is

1059: \begin{equation}

1060: \label{fcg}

1061: D(k^2) = g^{-1} k^2.

1062: \end{equation}

1063: 

1064: In contrast to the formal methods of dimensional regularization and minimal

1065: subtraction, a simple UV cutoff renders our theory finite in a physically

1066: meaningful way while still preserving the symmetries noted in

1067: Sec.~\ref{Properties}. A cutoff would have been inconvenient for the two-loop

1068: calculations of Sec.~\ref{TwoLoop}, but it is appropriate for understanding

1069: experimental and numerical results on the inverse cascade. The local,

1070: renormalizable action (\ref{Sfppsi}) applies only with a UV cutoff $\Lambda$

1071: below the wavenumbers of the external forcing \cite{FNS77}. A corresponding

1072: renormalization prescription is obtained by staying in exactly two spatial

1073: dimensions and writing the coupling $g$ in Eq.~(\ref{Sfppsi}) as a

1074: cutoff-dependent quantity $\hat g(\Lambda)$, such that the long-distance

1075: behavior is independent of $\Lambda$. No cutoff dependence is needed for

1076: $\rho$, because the friction term is not renormalized, as we saw in

1077: Sec.~\ref{OneLoop}.

1078: 

1079: Special properties of minimal subtraction allowed us to conclude

1080: (Sec.~\ref{FDT}) that in that scheme the anomalous dimensions vanish and

1081: $\beta(\bar g)$ depends only on $\bar g$. We may expect that in the cutoff

1082: scheme these statements remain approximately true, at least for small values

1083: of the dimensionless friction parameter $\Lambda^{-2} \rho$. Because the

1084: $\beta$ function is scheme independent through two loops \cite{Z96}, we have

1085: \begin{equation}

1086: \label{Lbeta}

1087: \Lambda \frac{d\hat g}{d\Lambda} \equiv \beta(\hat g) = \frac{\hat

1088: g^3}{32\pi} - \frac{\hat g^5}{2048\pi^2} + O(\hat g^7).

1089: \end{equation}

1090: This result is directly useful for weak coupling, but can only hint at the

1091: possible strong-coupling behavior. We will now show that a specific

1092: strong-coupling form of the $\beta$ function is required for a fully

1093: developed inverse cascade, and that it can be naturally interpolated with the

1094: two-loop result (\ref{Lbeta}).

1095: 

1096: \subsection{\label{Strong}Strong-coupling behavior}

1097: 

1098: The key condition for the ideal inverse cascade is that the dissipation of

1099: energy is dominated by friction and is almost totally confined to low

1100: wavenumbers. This means that the dissipation rate

1101: \begin{equation}

1102: \label{diss}

1103: \mathcal{E} = 2\rho \int_0^\Lambda dk\, E(k) = 2\rho \int_0^\Lambda dk\,

1104: \frac{\pi k}{(2\pi)^2} k^2 \langle\psi\psi\rangle_=

1105: \end{equation}

1106: should be independent of the UV cutoff $\Lambda$, because a change in

1107: $\Lambda$ produces neither a renormalization of $\rho$ nor a rescaling of

1108: $\psi$. Under stationary conditions, $\mathcal{E}$ equals the rate of energy

1109: injection, given by \cite{AAV99}

1110: \begin{equation}

1111: \label{EgL}

1112: \mathcal{E} = \int_0^\Lambda dk\, \frac{\pi k}{(2\pi)^2}\, D(k^2) =

1113: \frac{\Lambda^4}{16\pi\, \hat g(\Lambda)},

1114: \end{equation}

1115: in terms of the force correlation (\ref{fcg}). For $\mathcal{E}$ to be

1116: independent of $\Lambda$, we must have the strong-coupling behavior

1117: \begin{equation}

1118: \hat g(\Lambda) \simeq \text{const} \times \Lambda^4,

1119: \end{equation}

1120: corresponding to the asymptotically linear $\beta$ function

1121: \begin{equation}

1122: \begin{aligned}

1123: \beta(\hat g) &\simeq 4\hat g & (\hat g &\to \infty).

1124: \end{aligned}

1125: \end{equation}

1126: We now attempt to connect this form with the two-loop $\beta$ function

1127: (\ref{Lbeta}).

1128: 

1129: Perturbative expansions such as Eq.~(\ref{Lbeta}) are usually divergent, but

1130: a Borel transformation is expected to produce a finite radius of convergence

1131: about zero coupling \cite{Z96}. We see that the true expansion parameter is

1132: $\hat g^2$, and the alternatively normalized action (\ref{Sippsi}) makes it

1133: clear that the theory is unstable for $\hat g^2 < 0$. Thus we write

1134: \begin{equation}

1135: \label{BT}

1136: \frac{\beta(\hat g)}{\hat g} \equiv A(\hat g^2) = \int_0^\infty

1137: \frac{dz}{\hat g^2}\, B(z) \exp\frac{-z}{\hat g^2}.

1138: \end{equation}

1139: For the perturbation series

1140: \begin{equation}

1141: A(\hat g^2) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty A_n \hat g^{2n},

1142: \end{equation}

1143: the Borel transform is

1144: \begin{equation}

1145: B(z) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{A_n}{n!} z^n.

1146: \end{equation}

1147: In our case,

1148: \begin{equation}

1149: \label{Bser}

1150: B(z) = \frac{z}{32\pi} - \frac{z^2}{4096\pi^2} + O(z^3).

1151: \end{equation}

1152: 

1153: The Borel transform often has poles on the negative real axis associated with

1154: instantons \cite{Z96}, but $\beta(\hat g)$ is well-defined from

1155: Eq.~(\ref{BT}) as long as $B(z)$ is regular on the positive real axis. A

1156: simple and suitable rational (Pad\'e) approximant to $B(z)$ is

1157: \begin{equation}

1158: \begin{aligned}

1159: B(z) &\simeq \frac{z}{32\pi + yz} & (y &\ge 0);

1160: \end{aligned}

1161: \end{equation}

1162: fortunately, the choice $y = \frac{1}{4}$ agrees with Eq.~(\ref{Bser}). We

1163: thus take

1164: \begin{equation}

1165: B(z) \simeq \frac{4z}{128\pi + z},

1166: \end{equation}

1167: but we do not here attempt to study the possible instanton solutions

1168: corresponding to the pole at $z = -128\pi$. Eq.~(\ref{BT}) then gives

1169: precisely the desired asymptotic behavior

1170: \begin{equation}

1171: \begin{aligned}

1172: \beta(\hat g) &\simeq 4\hat g & (\hat g &\to \infty).

1173: \end{aligned}

1174: \end{equation}

1175: 

1176: We now ask whether the observed $k^{-5/3}$ energy spectrum (\ref{Ek}) is

1177: consistent with our theory, although we are unable to derive it

1178: systematically. We conjecture that strong-coupling effects produce the

1179: spectrum

1180: \begin{equation}

1181: \label{Ek1}

1182: E(k) \sim \mathcal{E}^{2/3} k^{-5/3}

1183: \end{equation}

1184: for

1185: \begin{equation}

1186: k \gtrsim k_{\text{fr}} = \mathcal{E}^{-1/2} \rho^{3/2}.

1187: \end{equation}

1188: From Eq.~(\ref{EgL}), the running coupling is

1189: \begin{equation}

1190: \hat g(\Lambda) \sim \mathcal{E}^{-1} \Lambda^4.

1191: \end{equation}

1192: For nonperturbative effects to be operative down to the wavenumber

1193: $k_{\text{fr}}$, we must have

1194: \begin{equation}

1195: \hat g(k_{\text{fr}}) \sim (\mathcal{E}^{-1} \rho^2)^3 \gtrsim 1.

1196: \end{equation}

1197: In the borderline case where $\hat g(k_{\text{fr}}) \sim 1$, we have

1198: $k_{\text{fr}} \sim \mathcal{E}^{1/4} \sim \rho^{1/2}$, and we can match

1199: Eq.~(\ref{Ek1}) in order of magnitude with the perturbative energy spectrum

1200: (\ref{Ekp}):

1201: \begin{equation}

1202: E(k_{\text{fr}}) \sim \mathcal{E}^{2/3} k_{\text{fr}}^{-5/3} \sim

1203: \mathcal{E}^{1/4} \sim \frac{k_{\text{fr}}^3}{\rho + k_{\text{fr}}^2}.

1204: \end{equation}

1205: Even when $\hat g(k_{\text{fr}}) \gg 1$, we may guess from Eq.~(\ref{Ekp})

1206: that in order of magnitude

1207: \begin{equation}

1208: E(k_{\text{fr}}) \sim \frac{k_{\text{fr}}^3}{\rho\, \hat g(k_{\text{fr}}) +

1209: k_{\text{fr}}^2} \sim \mathcal{E}^{3/2} \rho^{-5/2},

1210: \end{equation}

1211: and this again matches Eq.~(\ref{Ek1}) at $k_{\text{fr}}$.

1212: 

1213: In the case $\hat g(k_{\text{fr}}) \gg 1$, the running coupling eventually

1214: becomes $\sim 1$ at a lower wavenumber

1215: \begin{equation}

1216: k_g \sim \mathcal{E}^{1/4},

1217: \end{equation}

1218: below which perturbation theory is applicable and the energy spectrum is

1219: given roughly by Eq.~(\ref{Ekp1}). Thus we envision a varied but continuous

1220: behavior of the energy spectrum in the different regions:

1221: \begin{equation}

1222: E(k) \sim

1223: \begin{cases}

1224: \rho^{-1} k^3 & (k \lesssim \mathcal{E}^{1/4}),\\

1225: \mathcal{E} \rho^{-1} k^{-1} & (\mathcal{E}^{1/4} \lesssim k \lesssim

1226: \mathcal{E}^{-1/2} \rho^{3/2}),\\

1227: \mathcal{E}^{2/3} k^{-5/3} & (k \gtrsim \mathcal{E}^{-1/2} \rho^{3/2}).

1228: \end{cases}

1229: \end{equation}

1230: As a further check, we note that the contribution to the energy dissipation

1231: rate (\ref{diss}) for each of the three regions is $\sim \mathcal{E}$ (up to

1232: a logarithmic factor for the middle region). This suggests that a fully

1233: developed stationary inverse cascade has several distinct dissipation ranges.

1234: Testing by experiments and simulations is not straightforward, because

1235: finite-size effects may become important before the lower-wavenumber ranges

1236: are reached.

1237: 

1238: \subsection{\label{Flux}Energy flux and third moment}

1239: 

1240: We have described the ideal inverse cascade in terms of external forcing

1241: confined to high wavenumbers (assumed in Sec.~\ref{Relevance}) and energy

1242: dissipation practically confined to low wavenumbers (made plausible in Secs.\

1243: \ref{RG} and \ref{Strong}). This separation is equivalent to the conventional

1244: criterion of an inertial range with a constant energy flux. However, unlike

1245: the energy spectrum (a simple correlation function), the energy flux in

1246: wavenumber space is not invariant under the RG flow and is not given

1247: straightforwardly by our local field theory. Renormalization introduces the

1248: forcing (\ref{fcg}), which is nonzero even for wavenumbers in the inertial

1249: range and so makes the flux appear nonconstant. This effective forcing simply

1250: represents the energy transfer from wavenumbers $k > \Lambda$ that have been

1251: integrated out.

1252: 

1253: We can resolve the flux problem by working instead in physical space, where

1254: the effective forcing is a differentiated delta function that is zero at

1255: finite distances, including the inertial range of lengths. Thus we inquire

1256: whether the physical-space energy flux \cite{F95}

1257: \begin{equation}

1258: \label{er}

1259: \varepsilon(r) = -\tfrac{1}{4} \bm{\nabla}_{\mathbf{r}} \cdot \langle

1260: |\delta\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})|^2 \delta\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}) \rangle

1261: \end{equation}

1262: is preserved under renormalization. The flux is given in terms of the third

1263: moment of the velocity increment

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: \delta\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}) = \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{r}) -

1266: \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x})

1267: \end{equation}

1268: and is independent of $\mathbf{x}$ by homogeneity. Under stationary

1269: conditions, the Navier--Stokes equation (\ref{NSv}) yields \cite{B99}

1270: \begin{align}

1271: \varepsilon(r) &= (\nu\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}^2 - \alpha) \langle

1272: \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}) \cdot \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{r}) \rangle +

1273: \tfrac{1}{2} \hat C(r)\nonumber\\

1274: \label{er1}

1275: &= [\hat g(\Lambda)^{-1} \nabla_{\mathbf{r}}^2 - \rho] \langle

1276: \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}) \cdot \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{r}) \rangle,

1277: \end{align}

1278: where $\hat C(r)$ is the vanishing physical-space force correlation, and we

1279: have used Eqs.\ (\ref{nug}) and (\ref{alpharho}).

1280: 

1281: The right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{er1}) can be interpreted as minus the rate

1282: of energy dissipation at length scales larger than $r$. Since $\langle

1283: \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}) \cdot \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{r}) \rangle$ is an

1284: RG-invariant correlation function, only the viscosity $\hat g(\Lambda)^{-1}$

1285: introduces cutoff dependence. In accordance with our argument in

1286: Sec.~\ref{Strong}, as long as the energy dissipation is dominated by

1287: friction, the dissipation rate is independent of $\Lambda$, giving a

1288: well-defined energy flux

1289: \begin{equation}

1290: \varepsilon(r) = -\rho \langle \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}) \cdot

1291: \mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{r}) \rangle

1292: \end{equation}

1293: proportional to the Fourier transform of the energy spectrum. And if this

1294: spectrum is almost entirely concentrated at low wavenumbers $k \lesssim

1295: k_{\text{fr}}$, it follows that in the inertial range ($r \ll

1296: k_{\text{fr}}^{-1}$) the flux is constant,

1297: \begin{equation}

1298: \varepsilon(r) \simeq \varepsilon(0) = -\rho \langle v^2 \rangle =

1299: -\mathcal{E}.

1300: \end{equation}

1301: 

1302: \subsection{\label{Intermitt}Intermittency}

1303: 

1304: A striking feature observed in the inverse cascade is the approximate scale

1305: invariance of inertial-range velocity correlations (structure functions). The

1306: $k^{-5/3}$ energy spectrum (\ref{Ek}) gives for the second moment \cite{F95}

1307: \begin{equation}

1308: \label{vv}

1309: \langle |\delta\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})|^2 \rangle \propto \mathcal{E}^{2/3}

1310: r^{2/3},

1311: \end{equation}

1312: and the constant energy flux (\ref{er}) gives for the third moment \cite{B99}

1313: \begin{equation}

1314: \label{vvv}

1315: \langle |\delta\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r})|^2 \delta\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r}) \rangle

1316: \propto \mathcal{E} \mathbf{r}.

1317: \end{equation}

1318: In our field theory, since the anomalous dimensions vanish, such moments can

1319: be written in the form

1320: \begin{equation}

1321: \label{vn}

1322: \langle (\delta v)^n \rangle = r^{-n} f_n\bm{(}\hat g(r^{-1}), \rho

1323: r^2\bm{)},

1324: \end{equation}

1325: where $r^{-n}$ is the kinematic scaling and $f_n$ is a function of the

1326: dimensionless running couplings. Eq.~(\ref{vn}) should reduce to the observed

1327: forms in the inertial range

1328: \begin{equation}

1329: \label{inr}

1330: r \ll k_{\text{fr}}^{-1} = \mathcal{E}^{1/2} \rho^{-3/2},

1331: \end{equation}

1332: subject to the condition for a fully developed cascade,

1333: \begin{equation}

1334: \label{gkfr}

1335: \hat g(k_{\text{fr}}) \sim (\mathcal{E}^{-1} \rho^2)^3 \gg 1.

1336: \end{equation}

1337: Conditions (\ref{inr}) and (\ref{gkfr}) are equivalent to

1338: \begin{equation}

1339: \label{cond}

1340: (\rho r^2)^{-2} \ll \hat g(r^{-1}) \ll (\rho r^2)^{-3}.

1341: \end{equation}

1342: 

1343: To achieve complete scale invariance of inertial-range structure functions

1344: (absence of intermittency), we must have

1345: \begin{equation}

1346: \label{fn}

1347: f_n\bm{(}\hat g(r^{-1}), \rho r^2\bm{)} \propto \hat g(r^{-1})^{-n/3}

1348: \end{equation}

1349: for the range of arguments (\ref{cond}); then $f_n \propto \mathcal{E}^{n/3}

1350: r^{4n/3}$, and

1351: \begin{equation}

1352: \langle (\delta v)^n \rangle \propto \mathcal{E}^{n/3} r^{n/3}.

1353: \end{equation}

1354: Eq.~(\ref{fn}) requires a specific nonperturbative behavior of velocity

1355: correlations at strong coupling, mimicking the effect of an anomalous

1356: dimension. RG theory alone does not constrain the functions $f_n$. The

1357: well-established second moment (\ref{vv}) and third moment (\ref{vvv})

1358: strongly suggest that an exact calculation in our theory would yield the

1359: required behavior of $f_2$ and $f_3$. But in the absence of a field-theoretic

1360: reason why Eq.~(\ref{fn}) should persist for $n \ge 4$, high-order structure

1361: functions may generically be expected to violate scale invariance and produce

1362: intermittency. In sum, we would not be at all surprised by observations of

1363: intermittency in the inverse cascade, but a seeming total absence of

1364: intermittency would raise questions about unknown properties of our theory

1365: that enforce effective scale invariance.

1366: 

1367: Some numerical studies of higher moments \cite{SY93,SY94} deal with a

1368: nonstationary inverse cascade and find no signs of intermittency. Such

1369: results are not directly relevant to this paper but have been explained

1370: theoretically \cite{Y99} based on the growth of the inertial range with time.

1371: For the stationary inverse cascade, laboratory experiments \cite{PT98,DBPT01}

1372: reveal no evidence of intermittency. The results of stationary numerical

1373: simulations, however, are mixed: A study using linear friction \cite{BCV00}

1374: confirms the absence of intermittency, but a study using hypofriction with

1375: one inverse Laplacian \cite{BDF95} obtains intermittency that is described as

1376: strong and as similar to that observed in the three-dimensional direct

1377: cascade. Surprisingly, results from the latter simulation are also presented

1378: in a subsequent paper \cite{DBPT01} where the intermittency is described as

1379: insignificant. The evidence on intermittency in the stationary inverse

1380: cascade is unclear, and further numerical studies would be useful to resolve

1381: the question. Results exhibiting strong intermittency are most natural, from

1382: the viewpoint of our field theory.

1383: 

1384: The mild hypofriction used in the numerical study obtaining strong

1385: intermittency \cite{BDF95} is unlikely to alter the qualitative structure of

1386: our theory. While the inverse Laplacian renders the initial Navier--Stokes

1387: equation (\ref{NSv}) nonlocal, the differentiated form (\ref{NSpsi}) and the

1388: field-theory action (\ref{Sfppsi}) are still local in terms of the stream

1389: function $\psi$. The hypofriction term certainly violates Galilean

1390: invariance, but this symmetry holds for zero hypofriction and so its

1391: implications for the RG functions persist in minimal subtraction even when

1392: hypofriction is added. The same arguments used for linear friction in this

1393: paper suggest that intermittency should be expected with hypofriction as

1394: well. It would be interesting to perform a direct numerical study of the

1395: effect of modified friction on intermittency in the stationary inverse

1396: cascade.

1397: 

1398: \section{\label{Burgers}Generalized Burgers equation}

1399: 

1400: \subsection{\label{Continuation}Dimensional continuation}

1401: 

1402: As an example of an alternative statistical fluid model to which our RG

1403: methods can be applied but which exhibits different behavior, let us briefly

1404: consider the one-dimensional Burgers equation \cite{YS88}

1405: \begin{equation}

1406: \label{B1}

1407: \dot v + v\nabla v - \nu\nabla^2 v + \alpha v = f.

1408: \end{equation}

1409: Here $v$ is the velocity field of a fluid without pressure, $f$ is the force

1410: per unit mass, $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity, and $\alpha$ is the friction

1411: coefficient (not normally included in the Burgers equation but useful in

1412: controlling the long-distance behavior). As with the two-dimensional

1413: incompressible fluid, we assume that the forcing is confined to a band of

1414: high wavenumbers, and we study the response at lower wavenumbers.

1415: 

1416: FNS \cite{FNS77} found that the UV-stirred Burgers equation, like the

1417: Navier--Stokes equation, has a dimensionless coupling in two spatial

1418: dimensions and can be analyzed by an $\epsilon$-expansion in $d = 2 -

1419: \epsilon$. But their continuation of the Burgers equation to $d > 1$ does not

1420: preserve important one-dimensional properties, and their $\epsilon$-expansion

1421: is not fully consistent \cite{FNS77,YS88}. With $\nu = \alpha = f = 0$,

1422: Eq.~(\ref{B1}) yields conservation of the ``energy''

1423: \begin{equation}

1424: E = \tfrac{1}{2} \int dx\, v^2.

1425: \end{equation}

1426: This $E$ is not proportional to the physical energy of a pressure-free fluid,

1427: because it does not account for the varying density; nevertheless, $E$ is

1428: conserved in $d = 1$, and leads to a fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT).

1429: It is not easy, however, to generalize Eq.~(\ref{B1}) to $d > 1$ so that a

1430: similar ``energy'' is conserved, while maintaining other key properties such

1431: as Galilean invariance. This is the task we now address.

1432: 

1433: If we neglect dissipation and forcing, the conservation of $E$ in $d = 1$

1434: follows from the relation

1435: \begin{equation}

1436: 0 = v\dot v + \tfrac{1}{3} \nabla(v^3) \equiv v(\dot v + v\nabla v).

1437: \end{equation}

1438: The analogue in $d > 1$ that would yield conservation of

1439: \begin{equation}

1440: E = \tfrac{1}{2} \int d^d x\, |\mathbf{v}|^2

1441: \end{equation}

1442: is

1443: \begin{align}

1444: 0 &= \mathbf{v} \cdot \dot{\mathbf{v}} + A \bm{\nabla} \cdot (v^2

1445: \mathbf{v})\nonumber\\

1446: &\equiv \mathbf{v} \cdot [\dot{\mathbf{v}} + A (\bm{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{v})

1447: \mathbf{v} + (A - B) \bm{\nabla}(v^2) + 2B (\mathbf{v} \cdot \bm{\nabla})

1448: \mathbf{v}]\nonumber\\

1449: &\equiv \mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{w}.

1450: \end{align}

1451: Unfortunately, whatever the choice of the constants $A$ and $B$, the quantity

1452: $\mathbf{w}$ is not Galilean covariant and is not a suitable generalization

1453: of $(\dot v + v\nabla v)$.

1454: 

1455: To remedy this problem, we impose the potential-flow condition

1456: \begin{equation}

1457: \mathbf{v} = \bm{\nabla}\psi,

1458: \end{equation}

1459: as is commonplace when considering a multidimensional Burgers equation. Then,

1460: because

1461: \begin{equation}

1462: \dot E = \int d^d x\, \mathbf{v} \cdot \mathbf{w} = \int d^d x\, \psi

1463: (-\bm{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{w}),

1464: \end{equation}

1465: a scalar equation of motion can conserve

1466: \begin{equation}

1467: E = \tfrac{1}{2} \int d^d x\, \nabla_i \psi \nabla_i \psi.

1468: \end{equation}

1469: We take

1470: \begin{align}

1471: 0 = -\bm{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{w} \equiv {}&{-}\nabla^2 \dot\psi - A\nabla^2

1472: \psi \nabla^2 \psi - 2A\nabla_i \nabla_j \psi \nabla_i \nabla_j

1473: \psi\nonumber\\

1474: &- 3A\nabla_i \psi \nabla_i \nabla^2 \psi.

1475: \end{align}

1476: If $A = \tfrac{1}{3}$, this expression is covariant under the Galilean

1477: transformation

1478: \begin{equation}

1479: \psi(t, \mathbf{x}) \to \psi(t, \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{u}t) - \mathbf{u} \cdot

1480: \mathbf{x},

1481: \end{equation}

1482: which induces

1483: \begin{equation}

1484: \mathbf{v}(t, \mathbf{x}) \to \mathbf{v}(t, \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{u}t) -

1485: \mathbf{u}.

1486: \end{equation}

1487: 

1488: Upon restoring dissipation and forcing, we therefore propose

1489: \begin{align}

1490: &{-}\nabla^2 \dot\psi - \nabla_i \psi \nabla_i \nabla^2 \psi - \tfrac{1}{3}

1491: \nabla^2 \psi \nabla^2 \psi\nonumber\\

1492: \label{Bd}

1493: &- \tfrac{2}{3} \nabla_i \nabla_j \psi \nabla_i \nabla_j \psi + \nu\nabla^4

1494: \psi - \alpha\nabla^2 \psi = \eta

1495: \end{align}

1496: as a fully satisfactory multidimensional Burgers equation that reduces to

1497: Eq.~(\ref{B1}) in $d = 1$. Eq.~(\ref{Bd}) is formally very similar to the

1498: incompressible stream-function equation (\ref{NSpsi}), and we will follow our

1499: previous analysis closely.

1500: 

1501: \subsection{\label{OneLoopB}One-loop renormalization}

1502: 

1503: As in Sec.~\ref{Framework}, we assume Gaussian forcing and introduce a path

1504: integral with the action

1505: \begin{alignat}{2}

1506: S = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl[\tfrac{1}{2} (-\nabla^2 p)\,

1507: D(-\nabla^2)p\span\span\nonumber\\

1508: &+ ip(&&{-}\nabla^2 \dot\psi - \nabla_i \psi \nabla_i \nabla^2 \psi -

1509: \tfrac{1}{3} \nabla^2 \psi \nabla^2 \psi\nonumber\\

1510: &&&- \tfrac{2}{3} \nabla_i \nabla_j \psi \nabla_i \nabla_j \psi + \nu\nabla^4

1511: \psi - \alpha\nabla^2 \psi)\bigr]\nonumber\\

1512: = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl[\tfrac{1}{2} (-\nabla^2 p)\, D(-\nabla^2)p +

1513: i\nu p\nabla^4 \psi - i\alpha p\nabla^2 \psi\span\span\nonumber\\

1514: &- ip\nabla^2 \dot\psi - i\nabla_i \nabla_j p\, \bigl(\tfrac{1}{6}

1515: \delta_{ij} \nabla_k \psi \nabla_k \psi + \tfrac{1}{3} \nabla_i \psi \nabla_j

1516: \psi\bigr)\bigr],\span\span

1517: \end{alignat}

1518: where we have again integrated the $p\psi\psi$ term by parts. Analysis of

1519: dimensions in $d = 2 - \epsilon$ proceeds as before, since all terms contain

1520: the same numbers of derivatives as for the incompressible fluid. The final

1521: Burgers action, to be compared with Eq.~(\ref{Sfppsi}), is

1522: \begin{align}

1523: S = {}&{\int dt}\, d^d x\, \bigl[\tfrac{1}{2} g^{-1} \nabla^2 p \nabla^2 p +

1524: ig^{-1} p\nabla^4 \psi - i\rho p\nabla^2 \psi\nonumber\\

1525: &- ip\nabla^2 \dot\psi - i\nabla_i \nabla_j p\, \bigl(\tfrac{1}{6}

1526: \delta_{ij} \nabla_k \psi \nabla_k \psi + \tfrac{1}{3} \nabla_i \psi \nabla_j

1527: \psi\bigr)\bigr].

1528: \end{align}

1529: The scaling dimensions are again given by Eq.~(\ref{deps}).

1530: 

1531: The only change to the Feynman rules in Fig.~\ref{FeynRules} is the vertex

1532: factor, which now becomes

1533: \begin{equation}

1534: -\Gamma^{\psi\psi p}_0 = \tfrac{1}{3} i |\mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2|^2

1535: \mathbf{k}_1 \cdot \mathbf{k}_2 + \tfrac{2}{3} i (k_1^2 + \mathbf{k}_1 \cdot

1536: \mathbf{k}_2) (k_2^2 + \mathbf{k}_1 \cdot \mathbf{k}_2).

1537: \end{equation}

1538: Thanks to conservation of the ``energy'' $E$, the FDT is obtained just as in

1539: Sec.~\ref{FDT}, and together with Galilean invariance it implies that the

1540: anomalous dimensions vanish. Thus, to find the new one-loop $\beta$ function,

1541: we need only recompute one of the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{1L1PI}. We calculate

1542: \begin{equation}

1543: \label{1LpsipB}

1544: \Gamma^{\psi p}_1 = igq^4 \left(\frac{1}{32\pi\epsilon} -

1545: \frac{\ln(g\rho/4\pi) + \gamma_{\text{E}} + \frac{8}{9}}{64\pi} +

1546: O(\epsilon)\right),

1547: \end{equation}

1548: to be compared with Eq.~(\ref{1Lpsip}). Curiously, the $O(\epsilon^{-1})$

1549: term is exactly the same and again leads to the one-loop $\beta$ function

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: \label{betaB}

1552: \beta(\bar g) = -\tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon \bar g + \frac{\bar g^3}{32\pi} +

1553: O(\bar g^5).

1554: \end{equation}

1555: But the $O(\epsilon^0)$ term in Eq.~(\ref{1LpsipB}), which would enter a

1556: calculation of the two-loop $\beta$ function, differs from

1557: Eq.~(\ref{1Lpsip}), and we have no reason to expect an identity between the

1558: $\beta$ functions beyond one loop.

1559: 

1560: Our multidimensional Burgers equation (\ref{Bd}) appears not to have been

1561: investigated previously, and it is possible that numerical simulations in two

1562: or three dimensions could reveal interesting and unexpected behavior. The

1563: focus here, however, is on the extrapolation to one dimension ($\epsilon =

1564: 1$), where we seek to explain the known behavior \cite{YS88} of the ordinary

1565: Burgers equation (\ref{B1}). If $\epsilon$ is positive and small, then the

1566: $\beta$ function (\ref{betaB}) has a nontrivial IR-stable fixed point at

1567: \begin{equation}

1568: \bar g_*^2 = 16\pi\epsilon + O(\epsilon^2).

1569: \end{equation}

1570: By contrast, when a simpler continuation of the Burgers equation was used,

1571: the fixed point appeared to be IR-unstable near two dimensions

1572: \cite{FNS77,YS88}. From our results it is natural to expect an IR-stable

1573: strong-coupling fixed point in one dimension ($\epsilon = 1$).

1574: 

1575: \subsection{\label{Comparison}Comparison with inverse-cascade model}

1576: 

1577: Due to the nontrivial fixed point, the response of the one-dimensional

1578: Burgers equation to UV forcing is different from that of the two-dimensional

1579: Navier--Stokes equation---even in the absence of friction. At wavenumbers low

1580: enough that the fixed point is reached, Burgers correlation functions (at

1581: equal or unequal times) exhibit purely kinematic scaling, since all anomalous

1582: dimensions vanish. For example, from Eq.~(\ref{deps}), the scaling of time

1583: and frequency is given by

1584: \begin{equation}

1585: \begin{aligned}

1586: d_t &= -2 + \tfrac{1}{2} \epsilon = -\tfrac{3}{2}, & \omega &\propto k^{3/2}.

1587: \end{aligned}

1588: \end{equation}

1589: Meanwhile, in both models, the FDT implies that the energy spectrum (an

1590: equal-time correlation function) obeys equipartition. These conclusions agree

1591: with previous analytic \cite{FNS77} and numerical \cite{YS88} studies of the

1592: frictionless one-dimensional Burgers equation.

1593: 

1594: We have argued that the inclusion of friction dramatically alters the

1595: behavior of the two-dimensional Navier--Stokes model, from equipartition to a

1596: stationary inverse cascade. This is plausible only in the presence of a

1597: large, rapidly flowing coupling $\hat g$. We noted in Sec.~\ref{Cascade} how

1598: this RG flow could give rise to a constant energy flux and a $k^{-5/3}$

1599: spectrum. No such profound effect is expected for friction in the

1600: one-dimensional Burgers equation. Correlation functions will be modified at

1601: very low wavenumbers $\lesssim \rho^{2/3}$, but as long as $\hat g$ remains

1602: close to the fixed point, higher wavenumbers will retain the equipartition

1603: spectrum.

1604: 

1605: An open question concerns the strong-coupling behavior of our generalized

1606: Burgers equation (\ref{Bd}) in two dimensions with friction. If the $\beta$

1607: function happens to grow asymptotically in the same way as the Navier--Stokes

1608: one, then the arguments of Sec.~\ref{Cascade} can be repeated and it is at

1609: least possible that this Burgers model could exhibit an inverse energy

1610: cascade. If true, this should also be evident if the equation is studied

1611: numerically. It is unclear, however, whether this multidimensional

1612: Galilean-invariant scalar field theory has a direct physical application.

1613: 

1614: \section{\label{Discussion}Discussion}

1615: 

1616: We have presented a statistical field theory capable of describing the

1617: stationary inverse energy cascade in two-dimensional incompressible

1618: turbulence, and computed the RG functions through two loops. By contrast with

1619: previous RG studies of turbulence, we have taken advantage of the nature of

1620: the inverse cascade, with external forcing confined to high wavenumbers, to

1621: work with a conventional local field theory. The consequences of Galilean

1622: invariance and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem have been systematically

1623: derived based on the underlying symmetries of the action. After taking these

1624: symmetries into account, we have evaluated the necessary two-loop diagrams in

1625: dimensional regularization to obtain the two-loop $\beta$ function

1626: \begin{equation}

1627: \beta(\bar g) = \frac{\bar g^3}{32\pi} - \frac{\bar g^5}{2048\pi^2} + O(\bar

1628: g^7),

1629: \end{equation}

1630: which is independent of the renormalization scheme to precisely this order.

1631: 

1632: Because the anomalous dimensions vanish identically in minimal subtraction,

1633: no RG fixed point can yield the observed $k^{-5/3}$ energy spectrum of the

1634: inverse cascade. Instead, we have found that the inverse cascade could

1635: plausibly arise from nonperturbative strong-coupling effects in the presence

1636: of friction. The apparent anomalous dimension of the velocity must arise from

1637: the rapid RG flow of the coupling. Cutoff independence of the energy

1638: dissipation rate (or constancy of the energy flux) requires the

1639: strong-coupling behavior

1640: \begin{equation}

1641: \begin{aligned}

1642: \beta(\hat g) &\simeq 4\hat g & (\hat g &\to \infty),

1643: \end{aligned}

1644: \end{equation}

1645: and we have also obtained this in a heuristic way from a Borel transformation

1646: of the two-loop $\beta$ function. The observed energy spectrum in the

1647: inertial range has been matched with perturbative results at the wavenumbers

1648: where dissipation becomes important. Inertial-range intermittency (violation

1649: of scale invariance) is generically expected because the coupling flows

1650: rapidly with scale, but the evidence on intermittency from numerical

1651: simulations is mixed. On the other hand, a similar RG analysis of the

1652: one-dimensional Burgers equation confirms the simpler behavior of that model,

1653: controlled by a strong-coupling fixed point.

1654: 

1655: Our greatest difficulty is that the inverse cascade appears to be

1656: intrinsically a nonperturbative phenomenon. To make quantitative predictions,

1657: such as the exponent of the energy spectrum or the value of the Kolmogorov

1658: constant, it may be useful to combine a high-order perturbative calculation

1659: with an appropriate resummation method, as in our analysis of the

1660: strong-coupling $\beta$ function. Of course evaluating additional diagrams

1661: with two or more loops will be very challenging, especially if the finite

1662: parts are needed. At the present stage, the most intriguing prediction of our

1663: theory is that substantial intermittency should be expected in the stationary

1664: inverse cascade. It would be helpful to have more robust and consistent

1665: results from experiments and simulations to determine whether this

1666: expectation is realized, and if it is not, to identify the field-theoretic

1667: explanation.

1668: 

1669: \begin{acknowledgments}

1670: 

1671: I thank A. M. Polyakov, S. L. Sondhi, H. L. Verlinde, and V. Yakhot for

1672: helpful discussions.

1673: 

1674: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation

1675: under Grant No.\ 0243680. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

1676: recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not

1677: necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

1678: 

1679: \end{acknowledgments}

1680: 

1681: \begin{thebibliography}{34}

1682: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1683: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1684:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1685: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1686:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1687: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1688:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1689: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1690:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1691: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1692: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1693: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1694: 

1695: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kraichnan}(1967)}]{K67}

1696: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Kraichnan}},

1697:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Fluids} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}},

1698:   \bibinfo{pages}{1417} (\bibinfo{year}{1967}).

1699: 

1700: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zinn-Justin}(1996)}]{Z96}

1701: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Zinn-Justin}},

1702:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena}}

1703:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford University Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Oxford},

1704:   \bibinfo{year}{1996}), \bibinfo{edition}{3rd} ed.

1705: 

1706: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Frisch}(1995)}]{F95}

1707: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Frisch}},

1708:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov}}

1709:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge University Press},

1710:   \bibinfo{address}{Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Smith and Yakhot}(1993)}]{SY93}

1713: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~M.} \bibnamefont{Smith}} \bibnamefont{and}

1714:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Yakhot}},

1715:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}},

1716:   \bibinfo{pages}{352} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Smith and Yakhot}(1994)}]{SY94}

1719: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~M.} \bibnamefont{Smith}} \bibnamefont{and}

1720:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Yakhot}},

1721:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Fluid Mech.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{274}},

1722:   \bibinfo{pages}{115} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1723: 

1724: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yakhot}(1999)}]{Y99}

1725: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Yakhot}},

1726:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},

1727:   \bibinfo{pages}{5544} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1728: 

1729: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Babiano et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Babiano, Dubrulle,

1730:   and Frick}}]{BDF95}

1731: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Babiano}},

1732:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Dubrulle}},

1733: \bibnamefont{and}

1734:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Frick}},

1735:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}},

1736:   \bibinfo{pages}{3719} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1737: 

1738: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Boffetta et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Boffetta, Celani,

1739:   and Vergassola}}]{BCV00}

1740: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Boffetta}},

1741:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Celani}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1742:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Vergassola}},

1743:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},

1744:   \bibinfo{pages}{R29} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1745: 

1746: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Paret and Tabeling}(1998)}]{PT98}

1747: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Paret}} \bibnamefont{and}

1748:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Tabeling}},

1749:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Fluids} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}},

1750:   \bibinfo{pages}{3126} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1751: 

1752: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Honkonen}(1998)}]{H98}

1753: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Honkonen}},

1754:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

1755:   \bibinfo{pages}{4532} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1756: 

1757: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Polyakov}(1993)}]{P93}

1758: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Polyakov}},

1759:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{396}},

1760:   \bibinfo{pages}{367} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

1761: 

1762: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Forster et~al.}(1977)\citenamefont{Forster, Nelson,

1763: and

1764:   Stephen}}]{FNS77}

1765: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Forster}},

1766:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~R.} \bibnamefont{Nelson}},

1767:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~J.}

1768:   \bibnamefont{Stephen}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A}

1769:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{732} (\bibinfo{year}{1977}).

1770: 

1771: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{DeDominicis and Martin}(1979)}]{DM79}

1772: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{DeDominicis}}

1773: \bibnamefont{and}

1774:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~C.} \bibnamefont{Martin}},

1775:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{19}},

1776:   \bibinfo{pages}{419} (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).

1777: 

1778: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Adzhemyan et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Adzhemyan,

1779:   Antonov, and Vasiliev}}]{AAV99}

1780: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~Ts.} \bibnamefont{Adzhemyan}},

1781:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~V.} \bibnamefont{Antonov}},

1782:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~N.}

1783:   \bibnamefont{Vasiliev}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The Field Theoretic

1784:   Renormalization Group in Fully Developed Turbulence}}

1785:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Gordon and Breach}, \bibinfo{address}{Amsterdam},

1786:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1787: 

1788: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lesieur}(1997)}]{L97}

1789: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lesieur}},

1790:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Turbulence in Fluids}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Kluwer},

1791:   \bibinfo{address}{Boston}, \bibinfo{year}{1997}), \bibinfo{edition}{3rd}

1792: ed.

1793: 

1794: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{'t~Hooft and Veltman}(1972)}]{TV72}

1795: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{'t~Hooft}} \bibnamefont{and}

1796:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Veltman}},

1797:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}},

1798:   \bibinfo{pages}{189} (\bibinfo{year}{1972}).

1799: 

1800: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Martin et~al.}(1973)\citenamefont{Martin, Siggia, and

1801:   Rose}}]{MSR73}

1802: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~C.} \bibnamefont{Martin}},

1803:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~D.} \bibnamefont{Siggia}},

1804:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~A.}

1805: \bibnamefont{Rose}},

1806:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}},

1807:   \bibinfo{pages}{423} (\bibinfo{year}{1973}).

1808: 

1809: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bausch et~al.}(1976)\citenamefont{Bausch, Janssen,

1810: and

1811:   Wagner}}]{BJW76}

1812: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Bausch}},

1813:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~K.} \bibnamefont{Janssen}},

1814:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Wagner}},

1815:   \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{24}},

1816:   \bibinfo{pages}{113} (\bibinfo{year}{1976}).

1817: 

1818: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Phythian}(1977)}]{P77}

1819: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Phythian}},

1820:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}},

1821:   \bibinfo{pages}{777} (\bibinfo{year}{1977}).

1822: 

1823: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Adzhemyan et~al.}(1983)\citenamefont{Adzhemyan,

1824:   Vasil'ev, and Pis'mak}}]{AVP83}

1825: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~D.} \bibnamefont{Adzhemyan}},

1826:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~N.} \bibnamefont{Vasil'ev}},

1827:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Yu.~M.}

1828:   \bibnamefont{Pis'mak}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Theor. Math. Phys. (USSR)}

1829:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1131}

1830: (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).

1831: 

1832: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{'t~Hooft}(1973)}]{T73}

1833: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{'t~Hooft}},

1834:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},

1835:   \bibinfo{pages}{455} (\bibinfo{year}{1973}).

1836: 

1837: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Deker and Haake}(1975)}]{DH75}

1838: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Deker}} \bibnamefont{and}

1839:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Haake}},

1840:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}},

1841:   \bibinfo{pages}{2043} (\bibinfo{year}{1975}).

1842: 

1843: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Frey and T{\"a}uber}(1994)}]{FT94}

1844: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Frey}} \bibnamefont{and}

1845:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.~C.} \bibnamefont{T{\"a}uber}},

1846:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{50}},

1847:   \bibinfo{pages}{1024} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1848: 

1849: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Adzhemyan et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Adzhemyan,

1850:   Antonov, Kompaniets, and Vasil'ev}}]{AAKV03}

1851: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~Ts.} \bibnamefont{Adzhemyan}},

1852:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~V.} \bibnamefont{Antonov}},

1853:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~V.} \bibnamefont{Kompaniets}},

1854:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~N.}

1855:   \bibnamefont{Vasil'ev}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B}

1856:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{17}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2137}

1857: (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1858: 

1859: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wolfram}(1999)}]{W99}

1860: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Wolfram}},

1861:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The Mathematica Book}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge

1862:   University Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{1999}),

1863:   \bibinfo{edition}{4th} ed.

1864: 

1865: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Press et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Press, Teukolsky,

1866:   Vetterling, and Flannery}}]{PTVF92}

1867: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~H.} \bibnamefont{Press}},

1868:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}},

1869:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~T.} \bibnamefont{Vetterling}},

1870:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~P.}

1871:   \bibnamefont{Flannery}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Numerical Recipes in C: The

1872:   Art of Scientific Computing}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge University

1873:   Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{1992}),

1874:   \bibinfo{type}{section} \bibinfo{chapter}{7.8}, \bibinfo{edition}{2nd} ed.

1875: 

1876: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Frisch and Sulem}(1984)}]{FS84}

1877: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Frisch}} \bibnamefont{and}

1878:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~L.} \bibnamefont{Sulem}},

1879:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Fluids} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{27}},

1880:   \bibinfo{pages}{1921} (\bibinfo{year}{1984}).

1881: 

1882: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Danilov and Gurarie}(2001)}]{DG01}

1883: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Danilov}} \bibnamefont{and}

1884:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Gurarie}},

1885:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}},

1886:   \bibinfo{pages}{020203(R)} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1887: 

1888: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sommeria}(1986)}]{S86}

1889: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Sommeria}},

1890:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Fluid Mech.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{170}},

1891:   \bibinfo{pages}{139} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

1892: 

1893: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Maltrud and Vallis}(1991)}]{MV91}

1894: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Maltrud}}

1895: \bibnamefont{and}

1896:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~K.} \bibnamefont{Vallis}},

1897:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Fluid Mech.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{228}},

1898:   \bibinfo{pages}{321} (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

1899: 

1900: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Borue}(1994)}]{B94}

1901: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Borue}},

1902:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}},

1903:   \bibinfo{pages}{1475} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bernard}(1999)}]{B99}

1906: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Bernard}},

1907:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},

1908:   \bibinfo{pages}{6184} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1909: 

1910: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dubos et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Dubos, Babiano,

1911: Paret,

1912:   and Tabeling}}]{DBPT01}

1913: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Dubos}},

1914:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Babiano}},

1915:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Paret}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1916:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Tabeling}},

1917:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},

1918:   \bibinfo{pages}{036302} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1919: 

1920: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yakhot and She}(1988)}]{YS88}

1921: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Yakhot}} \bibnamefont{and}

1922:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.-S.} \bibnamefont{She}},

1923:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},

1924:   \bibinfo{pages}{1840} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

1925: 

1926: \end{thebibliography}

1927: 

1928: \end{document}

1929: