1 / 24

Inverse magnetic cascade as a paradigm for Early Universe MHD

Inverse magnetic cascade as a paradigm for Early Universe MHD. A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist, P. Olesen: 1996, PRD 54, 1291 A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist, P. Olesen: 1997, PLB 392, 395 M. Christensson, M. Hindmarsh, A. Bramdemburg: 2001, PRE 64, 056405

fullerj
Download Presentation

Inverse magnetic cascade as a paradigm for Early Universe MHD

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. Inverse magnetic cascadeas a paradigm forEarly Universe MHD A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist, P. Olesen: 1996, PRD 54, 1291 A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist, P. Olesen: 1997, PLB 392, 395 M. Christensson, M. Hindmarsh, A. Bramdemburg: 2001, PRE 64, 056405 M. Christensson, M. Hindmarsh, A. Bramdemburg: 2002, astro-ph/0209119 2005, AN (in press)

  2. Decay of field – growth of scale • Starting point: EW phase transition t=10-10 s, B=1024 G • Horizon scale very short: ~ 3 cm • With cosmological expansion: ~ 1 AU • Can field grow to larger scales?

  3. Connection withordinary MHD • Fully relativistic equations in 2-D • 64x64 or 128x128 • Larger scales form

  4. Cartesian box MHD equations Induction Equation: Momentum and Continuity eqns Viscous force

  5. Shell model ofEarly Universe

  6. Silk damping large Pm (n>>h)

  7. Inverse cascade;helicity conservation and Initial components fully helical and

  8. 3-D simulations Initial slope E~k4 Christensson et al. (2001)

  9. Comparison with forced turbulence Injection at wavenumber kf  non-local energy transfer, Not a local cascade with const flux kf =5 kf =30 Brandenburg (2001, ApJ 550, 824)

  10. Helical vs nonhelical

  11. Helical decay law:Biskamp & Müller (1999)

  12. Helical decay law:Christensson (20022005) H not exactly constant Assume power law H follows power law iff r=1/2; then

  13. All length scales scale similarly

  14. Check scaling of s should be s should be ½+2s

  15. s is correction for finite Rm

  16. Again: comparison with forced

  17. Structure function exponents agrees with She-Leveque third moment

  18. Hyperviscous, Smagorinsky, normal height of bottleneck increased Haugen & Brandenburg (PRE, astro-ph/0402301) onset of bottleneck at same position Inertial range unaffected by artificial diffusion

  19. Relation to ‘laboratory’ 1D spectra

  20. Bottleneck effect: 1D vs 3D spectra Compensated spectra (1D vs 3D)

  21. Decay run with hyperviscosity Decay rate just as in ordinary turbulence Correction now compatible with She-Leveque

  22. Conclusions • Hyperviscosity allows for a reasonable guess of what one might see a decade later using direct simulation

  23. Magnetisation from quasars??

  24. Application: magnetic contamination of galaxy cluster 10,000 galaxies for 1 Gyr, 1044 erg/s each Similar figure also for outflows from protostellar disc

More Related