Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:16:11.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the most probable states of two-dimensional plasmas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

C. E. Seyler
C. E. Seyler
Affiliation:
School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-3801, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Charney-Hasegawa-Mima equation and two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) have ideal Lagrangian invariants that are used as the basis for most probable state analysis. An information-theoretic entropy defined in terms of the Lagrangian invariants leads to predictions for relationships between the field quantities. These relationships are tested through numerical solution of the equations through the turbulent relaxation of random initial conditions to coherent states. It is found that the predictions for the most probable state for the Charney—Hasegawa—Mima equation are essentially correct, whereas for two-dimensional MHD they are not. Questions and issues are raised pertaining to why a most probable state analysis based upon Lagrangian invariants seems to work in the case of the Charney—Hasegawa—Mima equation but not for two-dimensional MHIJ. A qualitatively correct entropy is proposed for two-dimensional MHD based upon field variables that are not local invariants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 56 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Honour of David Montgomery , December 1996 , pp. 553 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

REFERENCES

Book, D. L., Mcdonald, S. A. and Fisher, S. 1975 Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charney, J. G. 1948 Geophys. Publ. Kosjones Nors. Videnshap. 17, 3.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, H. and Mima, K. 1978 Phys. Fluids 21, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 1957 Phys. Rev. 106, 620; 108, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, G. and Montgomery, D. 1973 J. Plasma Phys. 10, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraichnan, R. H. and Montgomery, B. 1980 Rep. Prog. Phys. 43, 547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukharkin, N., Orszag, S. A., and Yakhot, V. 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthaeus, W. H. and Montgomery, D. 1984 Statistical Physics and Claos in Fusion Plasmas (ed. Horton, W. H. and Reichel, L.E.), p. 285. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 1990 Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D., Turner, L. and Vahala, G. 1979 J. Plasma Phys. 21, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D. and Phillips, L. 1988 Phys. Rev. A38, 2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D. and Phillips, L. 1989 Physica D37, 215.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D., Matthaeus, W. H., Stribling, W. T., Martinez, D. and Oughton, S. 1991 Phys. Fluids Lett. A4, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D. and Joyce, G. 1974 Phys. Fluids 17, 1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D., Shan, X. and Matthaeus, W. H. 1993 Phys. Fluids A5, 2207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasmanter, R. A. 1994 Phys. Fluids 6, 1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, R. 1990 C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sér. I B311, 575.Google Scholar
Robert, R. 1991 J. Stat. Phys. 65, 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, R. and Sommeria, J. 1991 J Fluid Mech. 81, 719.Google Scholar
Smith, R. A. 1991 Phys. Rev. A43, 1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, J. 1975 J. Marine Res. 33, 1.Google Scholar