Abstract
We study two dyadic models for incompressible ideal magnetohydrodynamics, one with a uni-directional energy cascade and the other one with both forward and backward energy cascades. Global existence of weak solutions and local well-posedness are established for both models. In addition, solutions to the model with uni-directional energy cascade associated with positive initial data are shown to develop blow-up at a finite time. Moreover, a set of fixed points is found for each model. Linear instability about some particular fixed points is proved.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
1.1 Dyadic Euler Model
Dyadic models for hydrodynamics have a long history traced back to the first such models introduced by Desnyanskiy and Novikov [22], Gledzer [28], and Ohkitani and Yamada [36], usually referred as DN model and GOY model respectively. Following these early papers, various models [10, 18, 23, 35] were developed by simplifying the nonlinearity in different ways. Among them, the Katz–Pavlóvic (KP) model [32] was derived applying Littlewood–Paley techniques to the Euler equation
The KP model with external forcing is the following nonlinearly coupled infinite system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
for \(j\ge 0\) and \(a_{-1}=0\), with \(f=(f_0, f_1, f_2, ...)\). The quantity \(\frac{1}{2}a_j^2\) stands for the energy of the jth dyadic shell with wavenumber \(\lambda _j=\lambda ^j\) for a constant \(\lambda >1\). The parameter \(\theta \) takes the form \(\theta =\frac{5-\delta }{2}\) with \(\delta \) being the intermittency dimension for the turbulent fluid (cf. [13]). For 3D fluids, \(\delta \in [0,3]\) and hence \(\theta \in [1, \frac{5}{2}]\). Evidently smaller \(\delta \) corresponds to larger \(\theta \). Conceptually a turbulent flow with smaller intermittency dimension \(\delta \) is more singular and hence exhibits stronger nonlinear effects.
The main features of (1.1) include: (i) it formally conserves the energy when \(f=0\); (ii) it only takes into account the nonlinear interactions of nearest neighboring shells through a Littlewood–Paley decomposition treatment; (iii) it is equipped with a forward energy cascade mechanism; (iv) spatial structure is oversimplified. Although model (1.1) has a seemingly simple form, analyzing it is highly non-trivial. Fortunately, two important properties play a vital role in the analysis: positivity of solutions starting from positive data and monotonicity of the rescaled quantity \(\lambda _j^{\frac{1}{3}\theta } a_j\).
There is an extensive literature for the study of model (1.1), cf. [16] for a thorough description. We highlight some results from the literature on the Euler model without the intention of providing a complete list. Finite time blow-up was first shown in [32] and later sharpened in [33]. For a closely related vector model, the authors of [27] also discovered finite time blow-up. A model of a combination of DN type and Obukhov type [35] was studied in [30] and shown to exhibit finite time blow-up when the Obukhov type nonlinearity is sufficiently weak. Anomalous energy dissipation and self-similar solutions for the unforced model were studied in [6]. The problems of uniqueness, well-posedness and regularity for the inviscid model were addressed in [4, 8]. The authors of [17] proved regularizing properties of the nonlinear term of (1.1) due to the forward energy cascade mechanism. The models with stochastic forcing were also investigated in many articles, for instance, see [5, 7, 26, 38].
The results of Cheskidov, Friedlander and Pavlóvic given in [14, 15] are relevant to our current paper. In [14], the authors studied (1.1) with \(\theta =1\) and positive forcing. They showed the existence of a unique positive fixed point for the dyadic Euler model (1.1) with positive initial data. They also established linear stability of the fixed point in the sense that there is no positive eigenvalue for the linearized system about the fixed point and that there exist solutions to the linearized system in \(H^s\) with \(s<\frac{1}{3}\) which decay exponentially fast in time. Moreover, they proved that every solution with bounded \(H^{1/3}\) norm approaches the fixed point in the energy space \(l^2\). Hence solutions with positive initial \(l^2\) data blow up in finite time in \(H^{1/3}\) norm. In [15] the authors further examined the properties of the unique positive fixed point and showed that the fixed point is an exponential global attractor. Via this property the authors provided another proof of finite time blowup of solutions in the norm \(H^s\) with \(s\ge \frac{1}{3}\). We note that persistence of positivity of the solutions plays a crucial role in the analysis of [14, 15].
1.2 Dyadic Models for Magnetohydrodynamics
The equations for incompressible ideal (inviscid and non-resistive) magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) are the set of partial differential equations
System (1.2a)–(1.2c) describes electrically conducting fluids in geophysics and astrophysics when the underlying length scales are very large, and hence the kinetic viscosity and magnetic diffusivity are negligible. In (1.2a)–(1.2c) the unknown vector fields u and B and the scalar function P denote the fluid velocity, magnetic field and pressure.
Inspired by results described above for the dyadic model (1.1) of the Euler equation, we study two particular dyadic models (suggested in [19]) associated with the PDEs (1.2a)–(1.2c) of MHD. One such model has a uni-directional energy cascade. The other model has both forward and backward energy cascade mechanisms. The model with uni-directional energy cascade is presented as
for \(j\ge 0\) with \(a_{-1}=b_{-1}=0\) and \(f=(f_0, f_1, f_2, ...)\). For positive solutions, the forward energy cascade within the dynamics can be illustrated below
The model with both forward and backward energy cascades is
with the bi-directional energy transfer illustrated as,
The quantities \(\frac{1}{2}a_j^2\) and \(\frac{1}{2}b_j^2\) in (1.3) and (1.4) represent the kinetic energy and magnetic energy in the jth shell, respectively. One can see that only interactions with the nearest neighbor shells are taken into account in the modeling. Both models (1.3) and (1.4) preserve the most essential feature of the original dynamics of (1.2a)–(1.2c), namely the total energy
is conserved formally. In addition, the cross helicity defined by
is invariant for strong solutions of the model (1.4), but not for model (1.3).
It is obvious that eliminating b (i.e. \(b_j=0\) for \(j\ge 0\)) reduces systems (1.3) and (1.4) to the fluid model (1.1). Beside sharing all of the similar difficulties arising from the nonlinearity in (1.1), the MHD models (1.3) and (1.4) exhibit extra obstacles due to the interactions between the fluid and magnetic fields. In particular, it is unlikely that solutions with positive initial data stay positive for all the time in a general setting. It is also not clear whether the quantities \(\lambda _j^{\frac{1}{3}\theta } a_j\) and \(\lambda _j^{\frac{1}{3}\theta } b_j\) exhibit certain monotonicity. On the other hand, the conservation of positivity is not a natural property, especially in the context of MHD models. Numerical simulations suggest solutions with positive initial data can become negative.
We take a brief look at the energy transfer mechanisms and get some basic sense of the difficulties. Denote the flux by \(\Pi _j=\lambda _{j}^\theta \left( a_{j}^2+b_{j}^2\right) a_{j+1}\) for \(j\ge 0\). The rate of change of the total energy of the jth shell for (1.3) is given by
where \(\Pi _{j-1}\) is the flux coming from the previous shell and \(\Pi _j\) is the flux escaping to the next shell provided \(a_j, a_{j+1}\ge 0\), and vice versa if \(a_j, a_{j+1}\le 0\). It thus represents a uni-directional energy cascade mechanism. Nevertheless, since the conservation of positivity is not valid in general setting, analyzing the energy transfer is not trivial. Moreover, there are obstacles to understand the energy flux \(b_j^2a_{j+1}\) involved with interactions between the velocity and the magnetic fields. The situation is even more subtle for system (1.4). Denote \({\tilde{\Pi }}_j=\lambda _{j}^\theta \left( a_{j}^2-b_{j}^2\right) a_{j+1}\) for \(j\ge 0\). Then for (1.4) the energy change rate of the jth shell is
We note that the sign of the flux \({\tilde{\Pi }}_j\) does not only depend on \(a_{j+1}\) but also on the size of \(|a_j|\) and \(|b_j|\). Hence it is challenging to obtain a rather comprehensive picture of the energy transfer for (1.4).
Despite the obstacles described above, the authors [21] were able to obtain results on uniqueness and non-uniqueness for the models (1.3) and (1.4) with viscous linear terms \(\lambda _j^2a_j\) and \(\lambda _j^2b_j\). More precisely, uniqueness of Leray-Hopf solution was established for \(\theta \le 2\); while non-unique Leray-Hopf solutions were constructed for \(\theta >2\). We remark that positivity is not known to hold for the viscous dyadic MHD models. The techniques used in [21] are independent of the positivity property.
We note that dyadic models for the MHD turbulence were introduced a few decades ago in the physics community, see [11, 25, 29]. A majority of contributions, for instance in [1,2,3, 9], concern numerical studies of various dyadic models. In fact, one of the motivations to develop dyadic models for the MHD is that direct numerical simulations for the original dynamics face serious computing limitations. More complex dyadic models have been proposed to include non-local interactions [24] and anisotropy [34] to understand the MHD turbulence. Although the dyadic models do not preserve geometric features due to the lack of spatial structure, numerics for these models show intermittency statistics and chaotic behaviour, which are in agreement with experimental MHD turbulence. For a full background in this regard, the reader may consult the recent review article [37] and references therein.
The main objective of the present article is to examine the inviscid systems (1.3) and (1.4). Global weak solutions and local well-posedness are obtained by employing standard arguments. In the context of the dyadic MHD model (1.3), we show finite time blow-up for (1.3) by constructing an appropriate Lyapunov function. We note that it remains an open question whether a solution of (1.4) with bi-directional energy cascade develops blow-up in finite time.
A set of fixed points for (1.3) and (1.4) are found with an explicit form. Specifically, assuming f takes the form
we find infinitely many steady states \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\) of (1.3) in \(l^2\times l^2\) which satisfy
and infinitely many steady states \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\) of (1.4) satisfying
In stark contrast with the dyadic Euler model studied in [14, 15], it is much harder to analyze the properties of the fixed points of systems (1.3) and (1.4). One obvious reason is that the fixed points are not unique. The more sophisticated difficulty comes from the interactions between the velocity and magnetic fields. Our understanding of the energy transfer from the jth shell of velocity to the jth shell of magnetic field (\(a_j\) to \(b_j\)) is limited at the moment. Although it is challenging to show stability or instability of the fixed points in general setting, we are able to establish linear instability results for some special fixed points. In particular, for the fixed point with zero magnetic field \(({\bar{a}}, 0)\), we observe that the linearized system is decoupled between the velocity and magnetic field and we prove that it is linearly unstable. More specifically, if \({\bar{a}}\) is positive, the velocity component is stable while the magnetic field component is unstable; if \({\bar{a}}\) is negative, both of the velocity and magnetic field are unstable.
1.3 Organisation of the Paper
-
Section 2 consists of notations and definitions of solutions for the dyadic systems (1.3) and (1.4).
-
Section 3 gives a proof of global existence of weak solutions for any initial data with finite energy. This result holds for both systems (1.3) and (1.4).
-
Section 4 gives a proof of local well-posedness in \(H^s\) for \(s\ge \theta \). This result holds for both systems (1.3) and (1.4).
-
In Sect. 5 we show that the system (1.3) starting from positive initial data blows up in finite time in \(H^s\) for \(s>\frac{1}{3}\theta \).
-
Section 6 describes the fixed point sets for systems (1.3) and (1.4).
-
In Sect. 7 we examine the linear instability for perturbations about two specific fixed points.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Notation and Definition of Solutions
We will often use \(C_0\) and \(c, c_0, c_1, ...\) to denote constants which may vary from line to line. They are universal constants unless specified otherwise. We say \(a=(a_0, a_1, a_2, ...)\) is positive if all of the components are positive.
Parallel to the energy space \(L^2\) and Sobolev space \(H^s\) for functions of space and time, we need to refer an analogue of such spaces for sequences by \(l^2\) and \(H^s\) (the same notation), with \(l^2\) endowed with the standard scalar product and norm
and \(H^s\) equipped with the scaler product
and the norm
We define the strong distance \(\mathrm d_s\) and weak distance \(\mathrm d_w\) on \(l^2\) as,
Naturally, \(\mathrm d_{\mathrm w}\) generates a weak topology on any bounded subset of \(l^2\). Weak convergence of a bounded sequence \(\{u^k\}\subset l^2\) to \(u\in l^2\) is understood in the usual way,
The functional spaces \(C([0,T]; l^2_{\mathrm w})\) and \(C([0,\infty ); l^2_{\mathrm w})\) are defined as
endowed with the distance
and
with
Definition 2.1
A pair of \(l^2\)-valued functions (a(t), b(t)) defined on \([t_0,\infty )\) is said to be a weak solution of (1.3) or (1.4) if \(a_j\) and \(b_j\) satisfy (1.3) or (1.4)and \(a_j, b_j\in C^1([t_0,\infty ))\) for all \(j\ge 0\).
Definition 2.2
A solution (a(t), b(t)) of (1.3) or (1.4) is strong on \([T_1, T_2]\) if \(\Vert a\Vert _{H^1}\) and \(\Vert b\Vert _{H^1}\) are bounded on \([T_1, T_2]\). A solution is strong on \([T_1, \infty )\) if it is strong on every interval \([T_1, T_2]\) for any \(T_2>T_1\).
3 Weak Solutions
In this part, we show the global existence of weak solutions for any data with finite energy by the Galerkin approximating method.
Theorem 3.1
For any initial data \((a^0, b^0)\in l^2\times l^2\), there exists a weak solution (a(t), b(t)) of system (1.3) and (1.4) on \([0,\infty )\) with \(a(0)=a^0\) and \(b(0)=b^0\).
Proof
We only need to show the existence of a weak solution to system (1.3), since minor modification of the proof works for system (1.4). For any fixed integer \(k\ge 1\), we consider the truncated variables \(\{(a^k(t), b^k(t))\}\) given by
with \(a_j^k(0)=a_j^0\) and \(b_j^k(0)=b_j^0\) for \(0\le j\le k\), and \(\{(a^k(t), b^k(t))\}\) satisfies the finite system
We notice that the functions on the right hand side of (3.1) are continuous in \(a^k\) and \(b^k\). Hence, there exists a unique solution \((a^k(t), b^k(t))\) to (3.1) on [0, T] for arbitrary \(T>0\). In order to pass a subsequence of \(\{(a^k(t), b^k(t))\}\) to a limit, we will apply the Ascoli-Arzela theorem. It is sufficient to show that the sequence \(\{(a^k(t), b^k(t))\}\) is weakly equicontinuous. For any fixed \(k\ge 1\), there exists a constant \(C_0\) independent of k such that
It follows from (3.1) and (3.2) that
for \(0\le j\le k\) and \(0\le t\le s\le T\), and similarly
Therefore, we have from (3.3) and (3.4)
for an absolute constant c. Obviously, \(\{a^k\}\) and \(\{b^k\}\) are weakly equicontinuous in \(C([0,T]; l^2)\), and hence are relatively compact in \(C([0,T]; l^2_{\mathrm w})\) by the Ascoli-Arzela theorem. Therefore, there exists a subsequence \(\{\left( a^{k_n}, b^{k_n}\right) \}\) and a weakly continuous pair of functions (a(t), b(t)) in \(l^2\times l^2\) such that
Hence,
In particular, we have \(a(0)=a^0\) and \(b(0)=b^0\).
It is left to show that the limit (a, b) is a solution of (1.3). By (3.1), we have
for \(0\le j\le k_n-1\). After taking the limit \(k_n\rightarrow \infty \) we get
Furthermore, since \(a_j\) and \(b_j\) are continuous for all \(j\ge 0\), the integral form implies that \(a_j\in C^1[0,T]\) and \(b_j\in C^1[0,T]\). Thus (a, b) solves (1.3).
\(\square \)
4 Local Well-Posedness
System (1.3) and (1.4) are locally well-posed in \(H^s\) with \(s\ge \theta \). Namely, we prove:
Theorem 4.1
Let \(s\ge \theta \). Assume \((a^0, b^0) \in H^s\times H^s\) and \(f\in H^s\). There exists a time \(T>0\) such that system (1.3) with initial data \((a^0, b^0)\) has a unique solution (a(t), b(t)) in \(H^s\times H^s\) on [0, T].
Proof
The local existence follows from a standard argument and a priori estimate for solutions in \(H^s\). We only show the a priori estimate here. Multiplying the \(a_j\) equation of (1.3) by \(\lambda _j^{2s}a_j\), the \(b_j\) equation by \(\lambda _j^{2s}b_j\), and taking the sum over \(j\ge 0\), we obtain
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz’s inequality gives
and similarly
We also have
Therefore, putting the last four estimates together yields
Since \(s\ge \theta \), we have \(\frac{2}{3}(\theta +2s)\le 2s\) and hence
for a constant \(C(\lambda , s, \theta )\). Thus, for \(f\in H^s\), there exists a time \(T>0\) and another constant \(C(\lambda , s, \theta , f)\) such that
The uniqueness can be obtained by the classical approach, i.e. establishing a Gröwall’s inequality for the difference of two solutions starting from the same data. We omit the details here.
\(\square \)
Theorem 4.2
Let \(s\ge \theta \). Assume \((a^0, b^0) \in H^s\times H^s\) and \(f\in H^s\). There exists a time \(T>0\) such that system (1.4) with initial data \((a^0, b^0)\) has a unique solution (a(t), b(t)) in \(H^s\times H^s\) on [0, T].
The proof follows similarly as that of Theorem 4.1.
Remark 4.3
Recall \(\theta =\frac{5-\delta }{2}\) and \(\delta \in [0,3]\). When \(\theta =\frac{5}{2}\) (\(\delta =0\)) the local well-posedness of (1.3) and (1.4) holds in \(H^s\) with \(s\ge \frac{5}{2}\) which is consistent with the well-posedness result for the ideal MHD system. On the other hand, if \(\theta =1\) (\(\delta =3\)), (1.3) and (1.4) are locally well-posed in \(H^s\) with \(s\ge 1\).
5 Finite Time Blow-up
In this section we show that a solution of the dyadic ideal MHD model (1.3) starting from positive initial data develops blow-up at a finite time in the space \(H^s\) with \(s>\frac{1}{3}\theta \). For dyadic models, we are aware of two approaches of proving finite time blow-up. For the forced dyadic Euler system the authors of [15] made use of properties of the fixed point and provided a dynamical approach to show the development of blow-up. Another method is to construct a suitable Lyapunov function for the underlying system that blows up at finite time, for instance, see [20, 30]. In particular, the model studied in [30] contains both the DN type and Obukov type of nonlinearities, and exhibits both forward and backward energy cascade mechanisms. Consequently, the solutions considered there are not known to be positive. However, the authors demonstrated blow-up by developing a special Lyapunov function approach. Their approach has certain flexibility and is robust. In the context of model (1.3), the interactions of the fluid and magnetic field make it harder to explore the energy transfer from shell to shell; as a result, a dynamical approach to show blow-up is out of reach. Therefore we choose to take the path of a Lyapunov function. Nevertheless, it seems quite challenging to construct finite time blow-up solution for system (1.4) by applying the aforementioned approaches. In fact, the mechanism of both forward and backward energy cascades may prevent finite time blow-up.
The result of blow-up for (1.3) is stated below.
Theorem 5.1
Let \(\theta >0\) and \(f_0\ge 0\). The solution (a(t), b(t)) of (1.3) with positive initial data develops blow-up at a finite time in the \(H^s\) norm with \(s>\frac{1}{3}\theta \).
Proof
The plan is to show that the quantity
with \(s>\frac{1}{3}\theta \) is not locally integrable, which will be achieved through a contradiction argument.
We introduce the rescaled variables \(w_j=\lambda _j^\theta a_j\) and \(z_j=\lambda _j^\theta b_j\). It follows from (1.3) that \(w=(w_0, w_1, w_2, ...)\) and \(z=(z_0, z_1, z_2, ...)\) satisfy
for \(j\ge 0\), with \(w_{-1}=z_{-1}=0\), \(f_0>0\) and \(f_j=0\) for \(j\ge 1\). Consider the quantities
for appropriate constants \(\gamma >0\) and \(0<c_0<1\) to be specified later.
Assume \(E_s(t)\) is locally integrable for \(s>\frac{1}{3}\theta \). Notice that
provided
and hence \(\phi (t)\) is locally integrable. We will proceed to show that \(\psi (t)\) is locally integrable as well and in the same time it satisfies a Riccati type of inequality for an appropriate value of \(\gamma \), which leads to an obvious contradiction.
First of all, by Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, we have
As an immediate consequence, \(\psi (t)\) is locally integrable.
On the other hand, straightforward computation based on (5.1) shows
Since \(\phi (t)\) is locally integrable, it is finite almost everywhere. Notice that the infinite sums on the right hand side of (5.4) are in the order of \(\phi (t)\) and hence are defined almost everywhere. It is clear that
Applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, we estimate the infinite sums as follows
and similarly
Combining the last four inequalities yields
Since \(a_j(t)>0\) and \(b_j(t)>0\) for all \(j\ge 0\) and \(t\ge 0\), it is also true that \(w_j(t)>0\) and \(z_j(t)>0\) for all \(j\ge 0\) and \(t\ge 0\). Therefore, we deduce from (5.4), (5.5), (5.6) and (5.3) that
provided \(\lambda ^{\theta -\gamma }-(1+2c_0)\lambda ^{\frac{\gamma }{2}-\theta }>0\). It follows from the Riccati type of inequality that \(\psi (t)\) becomes infinity at a finite time if
Therefore, the contradiction is achieved.
In the end, we summarize all the conditions on the parameters
In order to have the latter one satisfied, we can choose
Thus, \(\gamma \) can be chosen as
Notice that \([2\theta -2s, \frac{4}{3}\theta )\) is not empty given the assumption \(s>\frac{1}{3}\theta \). We also note condition (5.7) is satisfied for any positive initial data and forcing \(f_0\ge 0\). \(\square \)
We note the importance of the critical threshold index \(\frac{1}{3}\theta \) in terms of the energy equality. For the original ideal MHD (1.2a)–(1.2c), it was proved in [12] and [31] that solutions conserving energy need to have the minimum regularity of \(\frac{1}{3}\), which is analogous to Onsager’s critical regularity index for the Euler equation. We note that \(\frac{1}{3}\theta =\frac{5}{6}\) for \(\theta =\frac{5}{2}\) (and \(\delta =0\)); and the space \(H^{\frac{5}{6}}\) has the same scaling as \(B^{\frac{1}{3}}_{3, \infty }\) and \(B^{\frac{1}{3}}_{3, c({\mathbb {N}})}\) in three dimensions, which have Onsager’s critical scaling proved in [12] and [31].
6 The Set of Fixed Points
We consider (1.3) and (1.4) with the forcing \(f=(f_0, f_1, f_2, ...)\) satisfying
We will show the existence of fixed points of both systems (1.3) and (1.4); moreover, we provide an explicit form of them.
In order to simplify notations, we will rescale the stationary system of (1.3) and (1.4). Define
Let \(\frac{d}{dt}a_j=\frac{d}{dt}b_j=0\) for all \(j\ge 0\). System (1.3) reduces to
Lemma 6.1
The solutions \(\{(A_j,B_j)\}\) of (6.1a)–(6.1d) satisfy
for some constants \(A_0\) and \(B_0\) with the constraint
Proof
The two Eqs. (6.1b) and (6.1d) imply
for certain constant \(c_j\). It follows that \(A_{j+1}=c_jA_j\) and \(B_{j+1}=c_jB_j\) for all \(j\ge 0\). Then (6.1a) can be rewritten as
It follows
As a consequence of the recursive relation, we have
Therefore, (6.2) together with (6.4) gives rise to
and
We further simplify the previous form and obtain
Consequently, we claim that \(c_0\) has to be 1, since the sequences \(\{a_j\}\) and \(\{b_j\}\) are bounded. Thus, (6.4) implies that \(c_j=1\) for all \(j\ge 1\). Hence, \(A_j=A_0\) and \(B_j=B_0\) for all \(j\ge 1\). In addition, it follows from (6.1c) that
It concludes the proof of the lemma.
\(\square \)
With the same rescaling as above, the stationary system of (1.4) can be written as
Lemma 6.2
The solutions \(\{(A_j,B_j)\}\) of (6.6a)–(6.6d) satisfy
for some constants \(A_0\) and \(B_0\) with the constraint
Proof
The proof is analogous as that of Lemma 6.1. It follows from Eqs. (6.6b) and (6.6d) that
for certain constant \(c_j\) and all \(j\ge 0\). Thus we obtain from (6.6a) that
Therefore,
Thanks to (6.6b) and (6.6d), we observe if \(A_j^2-B_j^2=0\) for one j, it has to be true for all \(j\ge 0\). However, (6.6c) implies \(c_0(A_0^2-B_0^2)=1\). Consequently, \(A_0^2-B_0^2\ne 0\) and hence \(A_j^2-B_j^2\ne 0\) for all \(j\ge 0\). We conclude the only possibility is \(c_j=c_{j-1}^{-2}\) for all \(j\ge 0\). It then follows from the same argument from the proof of Lemma 6.1 that \(c_j=1\) for all \(j\ge 1\). Thus we have \(A_j=A_0\) and \(B_j=B_0\) for all \(j\ge 1\). In the end, (6.6c) implies that
\(\square \)
7 Linear Instability
This section concerns the long time behavior of solutions, specifically, whether a solution of (1.3) converges to a fixed point or not. Evidently, from Lemmas 6.1 and 6.2, we know that a fixed point of (1.3) or (1.4) is not unique. Without loss of generality, we choose \(f_0=\lambda ^{-\frac{1}{3}\theta }\) such that \(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{6}\theta } f_0^{\frac{1}{2}}=1\); thus, the steady state \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\) can be written as
Consider the perturbation of the steady state,
Based on (1.3), we derive the equations for \(\omega _j\) and \(\zeta _j\)
for \(j\ge 0\) and \(\omega _{-1}=\zeta _{-1}=0\). We focus on the two special cases:
-
(i)
\(A_0=1, B_0=0\): the fixed point corresponds to the fixed point of the dyadic Euler equation. We show linear instability with stable velocity component and unstable magnetic field.
-
(ii)
\(A_0=-1, B_0=0\): the fixed point also corresponds to a steady state of the dyadic Euler equation. We show linear instability with both unstable velocity and unstable magnetic field.
The main results described in (i) and (ii) are presented below.
Theorem 7.1
Let \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\) be the fixed point of (1.3) with \(A_0=1\) and \(B_0=0\) (hence \({\bar{b}}=0\)). For the linearized system about \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\), there are no positive eigenvalues corresponding to the velocity component; while every real number is an eigenvalue for the magnetic field linearized equation.
Proof
When \(A_0=1\) and \(B_0=0\), it follows from (7.3) that the linearized system is
for \(j\ge 0\) and \(\omega _{-1}=\zeta _{-1}=0\). Notice that \(\omega _j\) and \(\zeta _j\) are decoupled in the linearized system, and (7.4a) is the linearized equation of dyadic Euler model about the fixed point \({\bar{a}}_j=\lambda _j^{-\frac{1}{3}\theta }\). We will apply the continued fraction approach from [14] to (7.4a)–(7.4b). We look for a solution to (7.4a) and (7.4b) in the form
with real values of p and q. Inserting the form \(\omega _j=c_j e^{p t}\) to (7.4a) yields
for \(j\ge 0\), with \(c_{-1}=0\). Inserting \(\zeta _j=d_je^{q t}\) to (7.4b) gives
with \(d_{-1}=0\).
Following the arguments of [14], one can deduce from the iterative equation (7.5) that it is impossible to have \(p\ge 0\). Therefore, for a real and negative p, we can choose \(c_0=1\), and hence
It implies that
Therefore, the sequence \(\{c_j\}\) has finite \(H^s\) norm for \(s<\frac{1}{3}\theta \), and in particular has finite \(l^2\) norm.
On the other hand, it follows from (7.6) that
As a consequence, we know
which hold for any \(q\in {\mathbb {R}}\). In view of (7.7), we also have
Thus the sequence \(\{c_j\}\) has finite \(H^s\) norm for \(s<\frac{1}{3}\theta \). Hence the \(H^s\) norm of \(\{\zeta _j\}\) is finite for all the time if \(q\le 0\) and grows exponentially if \(q>0\).
\(\square \)
Theorem 7.2
Let \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\) be the fixed point of (1.3) with \(A_0=-1\) and \(B_0=0\). There are no negative eigenvalue to the velocity equation in the linearized system about such \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\). Every real number is an eigenvalue for the magnetic field equation in the linearized system. Thus the linearized system is unstable.
Proof
Taking \(A_0=-1\) and \(B_0=0\) in (7.3) gives the linearized system
Similarly, looking for solutions of the linearized system in the form
we have
for \(j\ge 0\). Now denote \(\alpha _j=\lambda ^{-\frac{1}{3}\theta }-p\lambda _j^{-\frac{2}{3}\theta }\). Following the analysis of [14], we infer from (7.9) that for \(j\ge 1\)
with the continued fraction defined as
We note that \(\alpha _j>0\) for all \(j\ge J\) for some large enough J, and hence the right hand side of (7.11) is positive. That implies p needs to be positive. Therefore, we know that the velocity component is unstable about the steady state with \(A_0=-1\) and \(B_0=0\).
It follows from (7.10) that
for any \(q\in {\mathbb {R}}\). Thus the magnetic field is unstable due to a similar analysis as in the proof of Theorem 7.1.
\(\square \)
Theorem 7.3
Let \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\) be the fixed point of (1.4) with \(A_0=-1\) and \(B_0=0\). There are no negative eigenvalue to the velocity equation in the linearized system about such \(({\bar{a}}, {\bar{b}})\). Every real number is an eigenvalue for the magnetic field equation in the linearized system. Thus the linearized system is unstable.
Proof
In analogy with previous analysis for system (1.3), considering perturbation
for system (1.4), the pair \((\omega _j, \zeta _j)\) satisfies
for \(j\ge 0\) and \(\omega _{-1}=\zeta _{-1}=0\). If \(A_0=1\) and \(B_0=0\) the linearized system with \(\epsilon =0\) is
while if \(A_0=-1\) and \(B_0=0\) the linearized system is
In view of the form of the linearized systems (7.4a)–(7.4b), (7.8), (7.13) and (7.14), we note that the instability results stated in Theorem 7.1 and Thorem 7.2 hold as well for the linearized systems of (1.4) about the fixed point with \(A_0=1\) and \(B_0=0\) and the fixed point with \(A_0=-1\) and \(B_0=0\) respectively.
\(\square \)
References
Alexakis, A., Mininni, P.D., Pouquet, A.: Shell-to-shell energy transfer in magnetohydrodynamics. I. Steady state turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 72(4), 046301 (2005)
Antonov, T., Frick, P.: Cascade and scaling in a class of shell models for MHD-turbulence. Math. Model. Syst. Precesses 8, 4–10 (2000)
Antonov, T., Lozhkin, S., Frick, P., Sokoloff, D.: A shell model for free decaying MHD-turbulence and the role of the magnetic Prandtl number. Magnetohydrodynamics 37, 87–92 (2001)
Barbato, D., Flandoli, F., Morandin, F.: A theorem of uniqueness for an inviscid dyadic model. C.R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 348(9–10), 525–528 (2010)
Barbato, D., Flandoli, F., Morandin, F.: Anomalous dissipation in a stochastic inviscid dyadic model. Ann. Appl. Probab. 21(6), 2424–2446 (2011)
Barbato, D., Flandoli, F., Morandin, F.: Energy dissipation and self-similar solutions for an unforced inviscid dyadic model. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 363(4), 1925–1946 (2011)
Barbato, D., Flandoli, F., Morandin, F.: Uniqueness for a stochastic inviscid dyadic model. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 138(7), 2607–2617 (2010)
Barbato, D., Morandin, F.: Positive and non-positive solutions for an inviscid dyadic model: well-posedness and regularity. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 20(3), 1105–1123 (2013)
Basu, A., Sain, A., Dhar, S.K., Pandit, R.: Multiscaling in models of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2687–2690 (1998)
Biferale, L.: Shell models of energy cascade in turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35, 441468 (2003)
Biskamp, D.: Cascade models for magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 50, 2702–2711 (1994)
Caflisch, R.E., Klapper, I., Steele, G.: Remarks on singularities, dimension and energy dissipation for ideal hydrodynamics and MHD. Commun. Math. Phys. 184, 443–455 (1997)
Cheskidov, A., Dai, M.: Kolmogorov’s dissipation number and the number of degrees of freedom for the 3D Navier–Stokes equations. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A 149(2), 429–446 (2019)
Cheskidov, A., Friedlander, S., Pavlović, N.: Inviscid dyadic model of turbulence: the fixed point and Onsager’s conjecture. J. Math. Phys. 48(6), 065503 (2007)
Cheskidov, A., Friedlander, S., Pavlović, N.: An inviscid dyadic model of turbulence: the global attractor. Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. 26(3), 781–794 (2010)
Cheskidov, A., Glatt-Holtz, N., Pavlović, N., Shvydkoy, R., Vicol, V.: Susan Friedlander’s contributions in mathematical fluid dynamics. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 68(3), 331–343 (2021)
Cheskidov, A., Zaya, K.: Regularizing effect of the forward energy cascade in the inviscid dyadic model. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 144, 73–85 (2016)
Constantin, P., Levant, B., Titi, E.: Analytic study of the shell model of turbulence. Physica D 219(2), 120–141 (2006)
Dai, M.: Blow-up of a dyadic model with intermittency dependence for the Hall MHD. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. (2021) (to appear)
Dai, M.: Blow-up of dyadic MHD models with forward energy cascade. arXiv: 2102.03498 (2021)
Dai, M., Friedlander, S.: Uniqueness and non-uniqueness results for dyadic MHD models. arXiv:2107.04073 (2021)
Desnyanskiy, V.N., Novikov, E.A.: Evolution of turbulence spectra toward a similarity regime. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Fiz. Atmos. Okeana 10, 127–136 (1974)
Dinaburg, E.I., Sinai, Y.G.: A quasi-linear approximation of three-dimensional Navier–Stokes system. Moscow Math. J. 1, 381–388 (2001)
Frick, P., Stepanov, R., Sokoloff, D.: Large- and small-scale interactions and quenching in an \(\alpha ^2\)-dynamo. Phys. Rev. E 74(6), 066310 (2006)
Frik, P.G.: Two-dimensional MHD turbulence: a hierarchical model. Magnetohydrodynamics 20(3), 262–267 (1984)
Friedlander, S., Glatt-Holtz, N., Vicol, V.: Inviscid limits for a stochastically forced shell model of turbulent flow. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 52(3), 1217–1247 (2016)
Friedlander, S., Pavlović, N.: Blowup in a three-dimensional vector model for the Euler equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 57(6), 705–725 (2004)
Gledzer, E.B.: System of hydrodynamic type admitting two quadratic integrals of motion. Sov. Phys. Dokl. 18, 216–217 (1973)
Gloaguen, C., Léorat, J., Pouquet, A., Grappin, R.: A scalar model for MHD turbulence. Physica D 17(2), 154–182 (1985)
Jeong, I., Li, D.: A blow-up result for dyadic models of the Euler equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 337, 1027–1034 (2015)
Kang, E., Lee, J.: Remarks on the magnetic helicity and energy conservation for ideal magneto-hydrodynamics. Nonlinearity 20(11), 2681–2689 (2007)
Katz, N., Pavlović, N.: Finite time blow-up for a dyadic model of the Euler equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 357(2), 695–708 (2005)
Kiselev, A., Zlatoš, A.: On discrete models of the Euler equation. Int. Math. Res. Not. 38, 2315–2339 (2005)
Nigro, G., Malara, F., Carbone, V., Veltri, P.: Nanoflares and MHD turbulence in coronal loops: a hybrid shell model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92(19), 194501 (2004)
Obukhov, A.M.: Some general properties of equations describing the dynamics of the atmosphere. Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Ser. Fiz. Atmos. Okeana 7, 695–704 (1971)
Ohkitani, K., Yamada, M.: Temporal intermittency in the energy cascade process and local Lyapunov analysis in fully-developed model of turbulence. Prog. Theor. Phys. 81, 329–341 (1989)
Plunian, F., Stepanov, R., Frick, P.: Shell models of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Phys. Rep. 523, 1–60 (2013)
Romito, M.: Uniqueness and blow-up for a stochastic viscous dyadic model. Probab. Theor. Relat. Fields 158, 895–924 (2014)
Acknowledgements
The work of M. Dai is partially supported by NSF Grants DMS-1815069 and DMS-2009422; the work of S. Friedlander is partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-1613135. S. Friedlander is grateful to IAS for its hospitality in 2020-2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by G. P. Galdi.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dai, M., Friedlander, S. Dyadic models for ideal MHD. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 24, 21 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00021-021-00640-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00021-021-00640-9