Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T01:52:28.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-helicity effect on α-type dynamo in non-equilibrium turbulence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2023

Krzysztof A. Mizerski Open the ORCID record for Krzysztof A. Mizerski [Opens in a new window] ,
Nobumitsu Yokoi Open the ORCID record for Nobumitsu Yokoi [Opens in a new window]  and
Axel Brandenburg Open the ORCID record for Axel Brandenburg [Opens in a new window]
Krzysztof A. Mizerski*
Affiliation:
Department of Magnetism, Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ksiecia Janusza 64, 01-452 Warsaw, Poland
Nobumitsu Yokoi
Affiliation:
Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8505, Japan
Axel Brandenburg
Affiliation:
Nordita, KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Hannes Alfvéns väg 12, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden The Oskar Klein Centre, Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden School of Natural Sciences and Medicine, Ilia State University, 0194 Tbilisi, Georgia McWilliams Center for Cosmology and Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: kamiz@igf.edu.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Turbulence is typically not in equilibrium, i.e. mean quantities such as the mean energy and helicity are typically time-dependent. The effect of non-stationarity on the turbulent hydromagnetic dynamo process is studied here with the use of the two-scale direct-interaction approximation, which allows one to explicitly relate the mean turbulent Reynolds and Maxwell stresses and the mean electromotive force to the spectral characteristics of turbulence, such as the mean energy, as well as kinetic and cross-helicity. It is demonstrated that the non-equilibrium effects can enhance the dynamo process when the magnetohydrodynamic turbulence is both helical and cross-helical. This effect is based on the turbulent infinitesimal-impulse cross-response functions, which do not affect turbulent flows in equilibrium. The evolution and sources of the cross-helicity in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence are also discussed.

Keywords

astrophysical plasmasplasma dynamicsplasma nonlinear phenomena
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 89 , Issue 4 , August 2023 , 905890412
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balbus, S.A. & Hawley, J.F. 1991 a A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks. I - Linear analysis. Astroph. J. 376, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balbus, S.A. & Hawley, J.F. 1991 b A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks. II - Nonlinear evolution. Astroph. J. 376, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, A. & Chen, L. 2020 The nature of mean-field generation in three classes of optimal dynamos. J. Plasma Phys. 86, 905860110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, A. & Subramanian, K. 2005 Astrophysical magnetic fields and nonlinear dynamo theory. Phys. Rep. 417, 1–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dormy, E. & Soward, A.M. 2007 Mathematical Aspects of Natural Dynamos. Chapman and Hall/CRC Taylor and Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibney, E. 2022 Nuclear-fusion reactor smashes energy record. Nature 602, 371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamba, F. & Sato, H. 2008 Turbulent transport coefficients and residual energy in mean-field dynamo theory. Phys. Plasmas 15, 022302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamba, F. & Tsuchiya, M. 2010 Cross-helicity dynamo effect in magnetohydrodynamic turbulent channel flow. Phys. Plasmas 17, 012301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, A. & Brandenburg, A. 2009 Memory effect in turbulence transport. Astrophys. J. 706, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabbari, S., Brandenburg, A., Losada, I.R., Kleeorin, N. & Rogachevskii, I. 2014 Magnetic flux concentrations from dynamo-generated fields. Astron. Astrophys. 568, A112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, F. & Rädler, K.-H. 1980 Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Landau, L.D. & Lifshitz, E.M. 1987 Fluid Mechanics, Course of Theoretical Physics, vol. 6. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Li, J., Ni, M. & Lu, Y. 2019 The frontier and perspective for tokamak development. Nat. Sci. Rev. 6 (3), 382–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mizerski, K.A. 2018 a Large-scale hydromagnetic dynamo by Lehnert waves in nonresistive plasma. SIAM J. Appl. Maths 78, 1402–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizerski, K.A. 2018 b Large-scale dynamo action driven by forced beating waves in a highly conducting plasma. J. Plasma Phys. 84, 735840405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizerski, K.A. 2020 Renormalization group analysis of the turbulent hydromagnetic dynamo: the effect of nonstationarity. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 251, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizerski, K.A. 2021 a Possible role of non-stationarity of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in understanding of geomagnetic excursions. Symmetry 13, 1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizerski, K.A. 2021 b Renormalization group analysis of the magnetohydrodynamic turbulence and dynamo. J. Fluid Mech. 926, A13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizerski, K.A. 2022 Dynamo effect caused by non-stationary turbulence in strongly magnetized, hot, low-density plasma. Astron. Astrophys. 660, A110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizerski, K.A., Bajer, K. & Moffatt, H.K. 2012 The mean electromotive force generated by elliptic instability. J. Fluid Mech. 707, 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffatt, H.K. & Dormy, E. 2019 Self-Exciting Fluid Dynamos. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pencil Code Collaboration, Brandenburg, A., Johansen, A., Bourdin, P.A., Dobler, W., Lyra, W., Rheinhardt, M., Bingert, S., Haugen, N.E.L., Mee, A., et al. 2021 The Pencil Code, a modular MPI code for partial differential equations and particles: multipurpose and multiuser-maintained. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 2807.Google Scholar
Roberts, P.H. & King, E.M. 2013 On the genesis of the Earth's magnetism. Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 096801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, P.H. & Soward, A.M. 1972 Magnetohydrodynamics of the Earth's core. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 4, 117–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüdiger, G., Kitchatinov, L.L. & Brandenburg, A. 2011 Cross helicity and turbulent magnetic diffusivity in the solar convection zone. Sol. Phys. 269, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G.I. 1921 Diffusion by continuous movements. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 20, 196–212.Google Scholar
Tennekes, H. 1979 The exponential Lagrangian correlation function and turbulent diffusion in the inertial subrange. Atmos. Environ. 13, 1565–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakhot, V. & Orszag, S.A. 1986 Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. I. Basic theory. J. Sci. Comput. 1, 3–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N. 2011 Modeling the turbulent cross-helicity evolution: production, dissipation, and transport rates. J. Turbul. 12, N27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N. 2013 Cross helicity and related dynamo. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 107, 114–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N. 2018 Electromotive force in strongly compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. J. Plasma Phys. 84, 735840501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N. 2020 Turbulence, transport and reconnection. In Topics in Magnetohydrodynamic Topology, Reconnection and Stability Theory, CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences 591 (eds. MacTaggart, D. & Hillier, A.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16343-3_6Google Scholar
Yokoi, N. 2023 a Non-equilibrium turbulent transport in convective plumes obtained from closure theory. Atmosphere 14, 01013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N. 2023 b Unappreciated cross-helicity effects in plasma physics: anti-diffusion effects in dynamo and momentum transport. Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. (submitted), arXiv:2303.01834.Google Scholar
Yokoi, N. & Balarac, G. 2011 Cross-helicity effects and turbulent transport in magnetohydrodynamic flow. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 318, 072039.Google Scholar
Yokoi, N. & Brandenburg, A. 2016 Large-scale flow generation by inhomogeneous helicity. Phys. Rev. E 93, 033125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yokoi, N. & Hamba, F. 2007 An application of the turbulent magnetohydrodynamic residual-energy equation model to the solar wind. Phys. Plasmas 14, 112904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N. & Hoshino, M. 2011 Flow-turbulence interaction in magnetic reconnection. Phys. Plasmas 18, 111208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoi, N., Masada, Y. & Takiwaki, T. 2022 Modelling stellar convective transport with plumes – I. Non-equilibrium turbulence effect in double-averaging formulation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 2718–2735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshizawa, A. 1984 Statistical analysis of the deviation of the Reynolds stress from its eddy-viscosity representation. Phys. Fluids 27, 1377–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshizawa, A. 1985 Statistical theory for magnetohydrodynamic turbulent shear flows. Phys. Fluids 28, 3313–3320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshizawa, A. 1990 Self-consistent turbulent dynamo modeling of reversed field pinches and planetary magnetic fields. Phys. Fluids B 2, 1589–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshizawa, A. 1998 Hydrodynamic and Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulent Flows: Modelling and Statistical Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshizawa, A. & Nisizima, S. 1993 A nonequilibrium representation of the turbulent viscosity based on a two-scale turbulence theory. Phys. Fluids 5, 3302–3304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, H. & Blackman, E.G. 2023 Helical dynamo growth at modest versus extreme magnetic Reynolds numbers. arXiv:2302.06042.Google Scholar