Scaling of spectral anisotropy with magnetic field strength in decaying magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

Physics of Plasmas

Volumn 5, Issue 12, 1998, Pages 4235-4242

  Oughton, Sean ^a   Matthaeus, William H ^b   Ghosh, Sanjoy ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^c SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION   (United States)

^d NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012607597     PISSN: 1070664X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.873159     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. D. Robinson and M. Rusbridge, Phys. Fluids 14, 2499 (1971).
2. S. Zweben, C. Menyuk, and R. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1270 (1979).
3. W. H. Matthaeus, M. L. Goldstein, and D. A. Roberts, J. Geophys. Res. 95, 20673 (1990).
4. V. Carbone, F. Malara, and P. Veltri, J. Geophys. Res. 100, 1763 (1995).
5. H. R. Strauss, Phys. Fluids 19, 134 (1976).
6. D. C. Montgomery, Phys. Scr. T2/1, 83 (1982).
7. G. P. Zank and W. H. Matthaeus, J. Plasma Phys. 48, 85 (1992).
8. Recall that the derivation (Ref. 6) of the Strauss equations explicitly excludes the presence of an initial O(1) population of Alfvén waves. However, if they exist, simulations (Refs. 11 and 17) show that evolution proceeds in such a way as to make the Stauss equations an increasingly valid approximation.
9. G. P. Zank and W. H. Matthaeus, Phys. Fluids A 5, 257 (1993).
10. D. C. Montgomery and L. Turner, Phys. Fluids 24, 825 (1981).
11. J. V. Shebalin, W. H. Matthaeus, and D. Montgomery, J. Plasma Phys. 29, 525 (1983).
12. R. Kinney and J. C. McWilliams, J. Plasma Phys. 57, 73 (1997).
13. R. Kinney and J. C. McWilliams, Phys. Rev. E 57, 7111 (1998).
14. M. Hossain, G. Vahala, and D. Montgomery, Phys. Fluids 28, 3074 (1985).
15. E. Weisshaar, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 41, 141 (1988).
16. W. H. Matthaeus, L. W. Klein, S. Ghosh, and M. R. Brown, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 5421 (1991).
17. S. Oughton, E. R. Priest, and W. H. Matthaeus, J. Fluid Mech. 280, 95 (1994).
18. W. H. Matthaeus, S. Ghosh, S. Oughton, and D. A. Roberts, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 7619 (1996).
19. S. Oughton, J. Plasma Phys. 56, 641 (1996).
20. V. Carbone and P. Veltri, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 52, 153 (1990).
21. S. Sridhar and P. Goldreich, Astrophys. J. 432, 612 (1994).
22. D. C. Montgomery and W. H. Matthaeus, Astrophys. J. 447, 706 (1995).
23. C. S. Ng and A. Bhattacharjee, Astrophys. J. 465, 845 (1996).
24. P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, Astrophys. J. 485, 680 (1997).
25. S. Ghosh and M. L. Goldstein, J. Geophys. Res. 99, 13 351 (1994).
26. W. H. Matthaeus, C. W. Smith, and S. Oughton, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 6495 (1998).
27. 0. This is usually explained in terms of the Alfvén effect (Ref. 41).
28. G. K. Batchelor, The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970).
29. 1)2〉, and for isotropic turbulence this is equal to 5E/Ω (Ref. 28). Since we are primarily interested in the scaling properties, and also we cannot invoke isotropy, we have elected to drop the associated numerical factors here.
30. A. N. Kolmogorov, C. R. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci. URSS 30, 301 (1941).
31. Note that the two cases are analogous to the cases considered in Ref. 13, in which the discussion is couched entirely in terms of RMHD.
32. M. Hossain, P. C. Gray, D. H. Pontius, Jr., W. H. Matthaeus, and S. Oughton, in Proceedings of Solar Wind 8, COSPAR Colloquia Series (Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 1996).
33. M. Hossain, P. C. Gray, D. H. Pontius, Jr., W. H. Matthaeus, and S. Oughton, Phys. Fluids 7, 2886 (1995).
34. M. Lesieur, Turbulence in Fluids (Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1990).
35. S. Ghosh, A. F. Viñas, and M. L. Goldstein, J. Geophys. Res. 99, 19 289 (1994).
36. F. Malara, L. Primavera, and P. Veltri, J. Geophys. Res. 101, 21 597 (1996).
37. G. P. Zank and W. H. Matthaeus, J. Geophys. Res. 97, 17 189 (1992).
38. S. Ghosh and M. L. Goldstein, J. Plasma Phys. 57, 129 (1997).
39. See also Ref. 36 but note that the ICs in their simulations are not isotropic, so that it is difficult to say whether the observed anisotropy is a consequence of the initial data, nonlinear evolution, or perhaps both factors,
40. T. von Kármán and L. Howarth, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 164, 192 (1938).
41. R. H. Kraichnan, Phys. Fluids 8, 1385 (1965).