1 / 20

Magnetic helicity: why is it so important and how to get rid of it

Magnetic helicity: why is it so important and how to get rid of it. Axel Brandenburg (Nordita, Copenhagen) Kandaswamy Subramanian (Pune). Brandenburg (2001, ApJ 550, 824; 2005, ApJ 625, 539) Brandenburg & Subramanian (2005, Phys. Rep., astro-ph/0405052). Magnetic helicity.

ilar
Télécharger la présentation

Magnetic helicity: why is it so important and how to get rid of it

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Magnetic helicity:why is it so important and how to get rid of it Axel Brandenburg (Nordita, Copenhagen) Kandaswamy Subramanian (Pune) Brandenburg (2001, ApJ 550, 824; 2005, ApJ 625, 539) Brandenburg & Subramanian (2005, Phys. Rep., astro-ph/0405052)

  2. Magnetic helicity

  3. Magnetic helicity conservation How J diverges as h0 Ideal limit and ideal case similar!

  4. Inverse cascade of magnetic helicity Pouquet, Frisch, & Leorat (1976) and Initial components fully helical: and  k is forced to the left

  5. Production of LS helicity forcing produces and But no net helicity production therefore:  alpha effect Yousef & Brandenburg A&A 407, 7 (2003)

  6. LS dynamos • Difference to SS dynamos • Field at scale of turbulence • The small PrM problem • Mechanisms for producing LS fields • Field at scale larger than that of turbulence • Alpha effect (requires helicity) • Shear-current of WxJ effect • Others: incoherent alpha, Vishniac-Cho effect, + perhaps other effects

  7. Cartesian box MHD equations Magn. Vector potential Induction Equation: Momentum and Continuity eqns Viscous force forcing function (eigenfunction of curl)

  8. (i) Small scale dynamos Small PrM: stars and discs around NSs and YSOs Schekochihin et al (2005) ApJ 625, 115L k Here: non-helically forced turbulence

  9. 256 processor run at 10243 at PrM=1 -3/2 slope? Haugen et al. (2003, ApJ 597, L141) Result: not peaked at resistive scale  Kolmogov scaling! instead: kpeak~Rm,crit1/2kf ~ 6kf

  10. (ii) Large scale dynamos: 2 different geometries (a) Periodic box, no shear (b) open box, w/ shear • Helically forced turbulence (cyclonic events) • Small & large scale field grows exponentially • Past saturation: slow evolution  Explained by magnetic helicity equation

  11. Scale separation: inverse cascade Position of the peak compatible with Decomposition in terms of Chandrasekhar-Kendall-Waleffe functions No inverse cascade in kinematic regime LS field: force-free Beltrami

  12. Time dependence: slow saturation Brandenburg (2001, ApJ 550, 824) Position of the peak compatible with

  13. Connection with a effect: writhe with internal twist as by-product a effect produces helical field W clockwise tilt (right handed)  left handed internal twist both for thermal/magnetic buoyancy

  14. Revised nonlinear dynamo theory(originally due to Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin 1982) Two-scale assumption Dynamical quenching Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin (1982) ( selective decay) Steady limit  algebraic quenching:

  15. Dynamo growth & saturation Significant field already after kinematic growth phase followed by slow resistive adjustment

  16. Large scale vs small scale losses Diffusive large scale losses:  lower saturation level Brandenburg & Dobler (2001 A&A 369, 329) Periodic box with LS losses Small scale losses (artificial)  higher saturation level  still slow time scale Numerical experiment: remove field for k>4 every 1-3 turnover times (Brandenburg et al. 2002, AN 323 99)

  17. Current helicity flux • Advantage over magnetic helicity • <j.b> is what enters a effect • Can define helicity density Rm also in the numerator

  18. Significance of shear • a transport of helicity in k-space • Shear  transport of helicity in x-space • Mediating helicity escape ( plasmoids) • Mediating turbulent helicity flux Expression for current helicity flux (first order smoothing, tau approximation) Schnack et al. Vishniac & Cho (2001, ApJ 550, 752) Subramanian & Brandenburg (2004, PRL 93, 20500) Expected to be finite on when there is shear Arlt & Brandenburg (2001, A&A 380, 359)

  19. (ii) Forced LS dynamo with no stratification azimuthally averaged no helicity, e.g. Rogachevskii & Kleeorin (2003, 2004) geometry here relevant to the sun neg helicity (northern hem.)

  20. Conclusions • Shearflow turbulence: likely to produce LS field • even w/o stratification (WxJ effect, similar to Rädler’s WxJ effect) • Stratification: can lead to a effect • modify WxJeffect • but also instability of its own • SS dynamo not obvious at small Pm • Application to the sun? • distributed dynamo  can produce bipolar regions • a perhaps not so important? • solution to quenching problem? No: aM even from WxJ effect 1046 Mx2/cycle

More Related