text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Turbulent flows of liquids and gases occur in a host of natural and engineering phenomena. A detailed understanding of atmospheric flows on Earth and the planets, predictive design for industrial equipment, and understanding of the processes within the liquid cores of planets all rely on an understanding of turbulence. One might naively think this an easy task, given that the governing equations are well known (i.e., the family of equations stemming from the Navier-Stokes equations with appropriate body forces). That understanding is hampered by the inherent nature of turbulence itself, where the velocity field is rough and velocity gradients are intermittent. Phenomenological considerations of Richardson and Kolmogorov have been very fruitful , but have also left deep holes in our understanding of the intermittent nature of turbulence. By intermittency, I mean a host of interlocking observations that the basic observables in turbulent flow; the vorticity, dissipation, helicity, acceleration, and their ability to effect advected scalar and vector fields (concentration or perhaps magnetic fields) all show abnormal statistics. As one example, in experiments one can observe accelerations hundreds times the means, lying 30 standard deviations from those means , or observe the dissipation locally becoming one hundred times its average value . The probability distributions for these observable then show far from Gaussian statistics with long tails. These types of gradient or time derivative concentrations appear local in space and time. Recent results of Gibbon and Doering suggest that the time intervals where singularities are possible become more localized as the Reynolds number increases .

There is little in the phenomenological picture of a cascade of energy to smaller scale (envisioned in wavenumber space) to explain intense events. The framework discussed here is an attempt to explain these observations, although it is as yet a hypothetical explanation. Rather than attempting a phenomenological explanation, instead I seek a causal explanation rooted in the known equations of motion and the relevant forces.

This is a non-statistical approach, but with the need to ultimately explain the observed statistics. First, I argue that the viscous forces are not responsible for the sudden growth locally of gradients, and that in this context, during the growth, one should consider the viscous forces irrelevant. This limits our scope to the growth phase of these events, and lands us in the context of the Euler equations. Solutions to the Euler equations may explain the sudden growth in the gradients and time derivatives in the context of an intermediate asymptotic . These solutions will be locally relevant for only a range in times, nearby the sudden collapse, but limited to times before viscosity, or perhaps cavitation, act to limit the strength of these near-singularities. As an example, one can look to the Burgers equation . There, negative slopes tend to collapse to form shocks, but the gradients are limited by the action of viscosity. In the case when the viscosity is quite small, there is a substantial range in time where the gradient value at the location of minimum gradient is approximately governed by the inviscid Burgers equations, with the gradients growing as predicted, i.e. inverse in time from a critical time.

What is unlikely to be understood through this exercise are the important long lived vortices so many have remarked on , which form an independent, but perhaps causally connected part of turbulent phenomena. Remarks on the connection between long lived vortex filaments and the local collapse of gradients studied here are given in the conclusion.

When entering the study of gradient focusing and local intermittent events in turbulence, one treads on the long worn and active path of singularities in Navier-Stokes and Euler equations . Although these studies are conceptually related, I view the Euler solutions discussed here (which are singularities of the Euler equations) as merely intermediate asymptotics for Navier-Stokes, as remarked earlier, and not observable singularities of viscous fluid flow. Many previous studies have concentrated on the Leray scaling $`\alpha =1/2`$  or on the case where a co-collapsing sphere shows energy conservation $`\alpha =2/5`$ . At least one simulation of R.M. Kerr has shown some evidence for $`\alpha =1`$ behavior . I restrict my attention to the case (described later) of $`\alpha >1`$ so that, as observed in turbulence, the velocities are not growing abnormally large. In many turbulent flows the probability distribution of the velocity is close to Gaussian, while the gradients are intermittent.

Whether or not there are singularities in Navier-Stokes solutions is perhaps of little practical consequence – extra phenomena such as dilations, cavitation or extreme rarity render them of little relevance. One should not mistake the irrelevance of singularities of the Navier-Stokes equations for an argument for the same for Euler singularities. Here, I’m proceeding based on the premise that the causal structure of Euler singularities is the underlying cause of intermittency in Navier-Stokes turbulence, even if they are capped by viscosity or other extra constraints.

While the following calculations and observations are presented with the hope of better understanding Navier-Stokes turbulence, their final utility is yet unknown. Nevertheless, because of the possibility of their importance, it seems useful to present them.

## 2 Similarity methods

There have been significant successes in understanding singularities and self-focusing in strongly nonlinear physical systems using similarity methods . Our previous work on the collapse of waves and the production of jets on a free surface illustrates the utility of similarity techniques in allowing analytical and numerical progress on systems not otherwise amenable to analysis . While there is no guarantee of the success of this approach for Euler collapse, proceeding with this hope may lead to new insight. Observe that in local gradient collapse the length scales become small as one approaches maximum focusing. In what follows I will assume that useful information can be obtained by consideration of the hypotheses that the length scales in all directions behave equally, and that the functional form is a power law in time. Regarding the first hypothesis, one might say that the different directions may have trouble behaving in different manners as they are constantly effecting each other and being mixed by motions and rotations. This argument, however, is hardly compelling. One might also argue that the relevant equations balance linear and nonlinear terms, so power-law time dependences may arise. This, however, is not necessary and depends on the algebraic form of these balances. There might be collapse events of more complicated forms; understanding their analytical structure may be much more difficult.

Beginning with the Euler equations for incompressible flow:

$$_t\stackrel{}{v}+\left(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\right)\stackrel{}{v}+\frac{1}{\rho }\stackrel{}{}P=0$$
(1)
$$\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{v}=0\text{,}$$
(2)
one can apply the above assumptions to form an intelligent guess for the form of the solutions:

$$\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=v^{}\left(\frac{t_ot}{t^{}}\right)^{\alpha 1}\stackrel{}{G}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{L^{}}\left(\frac{t^{}}{t_ot}\right)^\alpha \right)$$
(3)
$$P(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\rho (v^{})^2\left(\frac{t_ot}{t^{}}\right)^{2\alpha 2}\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{L^{}}\left(\frac{t^{}}{t_ot}\right)^\alpha \right)$$
(4)
Here various quantities are made dimensionless using some characteristic large scale $`L^{}`$, velocity scale $`v^{}`$, and time scale $`t^{}=L^{}/v^{}`$, as would be natural in the context of a shear flow. One can then seek solutions for the time independent similarity functions $`\stackrel{}{G}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. The above ansatz assumes all lengths scale as $`l(t_ot)^\alpha `$, velocities as $`v(t_ot)^{\alpha 1}`$. It is important to require that $`\alpha 1`$ in order that the velocities remain bounded as we approach $`t_o`$ from below. By defining a scaled coordinate $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and a scaled gradient

$$\stackrel{}{r}=\frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{L^{}}\left(\frac{t^{}}{t_ot}\right)^\alpha $$
(5)
$$\widehat{}=\left(\frac{t_{}t}{t^{}}\right)^\alpha L^{}\stackrel{}{}$$
(6)
one can eliminate time dependence from the Euler equations and obtain what are referred to as similarity equations

$$(1\alpha )\stackrel{}{G}+\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}\widehat{})\stackrel{}{G}+\left(\stackrel{}{G}\widehat{}\right)\stackrel{}{G}+\widehat{}\mathrm{\Pi }=0\text{,}$$
(7)
$$\widehat{}\stackrel{}{G}=0\text{.}$$
(8)
Solutions to Eqs. 7 and 8 correspond to solutions to the original Euler equations. Symmetries of the Euler equations may be used to generate further solutions associated with the similarity ansatz. The time or spatial origin of the solutions may be shifted, and one may also add a constant velocity.

The solutions to Eq. 7 are assumed to be smooth – they represent solutions which retain their smoothness up to the critical time $`t_{}`$, and loose it by the length scales limiting to zero. At that critical time the solution remains smooth at all locations (governed by the far field of Eq. 7) except at the origin, where the gradients become unbounded. Pelz and Green  have examined the stability properties of these solutions. Here I present new results and discussion on the form of the solutions of Eq. 7, their correspondence to Lagrangian dynamics, viscous cutoff mechanisms, and their relationship to turbulence with Kolmogorov statistics.

I examine the similarity equations progressively in one, two and three dimensions, in order to better understand their function and utility.

## 3 One dimensional similarity equations

In one dimension, one neglects the requirement of incompressibility and drops the pressure term in Eq. 7. In this case:

$$(1\alpha )G+\alpha x_xG+G_xG=0\text{.}$$
(9)
This equation has several families of implicit analytical solutions , only one of which is relevant here:

$$x=G+aG^{\alpha /(\alpha 1)}$$
(10)
The far field (i.e., large $`|x|`$) limit of Eq. 10 is $`G=x^{11/\alpha }`$. This similarity solution gives the generic formation of the first shock in the inviscid Burgers equation, and accurately describes the formation of a near-shock in the diffusive case, when the diffusion is small. In particular, Burgers equation is unstable where the slope has a maximum negative value, the magnitude of the slope following a characteristic diverges as $`(t_{}t)^1`$ for a time until the diffusive cutoff takes over. The value $`\alpha =3/2`$ is generically seen, due to a curious reason, and leading to a $`G|xx_{}|^{1/3}`$ far field. The location for the characteristic which sees the first shock in the inviscid case is the most negative slope in the initial condition. Generically, the second derivative will vanish there; locally the curve will be dominated by the linear and cubic terms. These cubic terms yield, in the confluence of characteristics in the shock, a functional form at the time of the shock $`u=u_{}+v_{}|(xx_{})/L^{}|^{1/3}`$. The probability distribution of negative gradients in randomly forced Burgers turbulence is governed by these pre-shocks .

## 4 Two dimensional similarity equations

The situation in two dimensions is quite different. Due to the simple advection of vorticity in two dimensions  – the vorticity remains bounded and no similarity solutions exist. However, examining this in more detail will assist in understanding the three-dimensional case.

In two dimensions, the vorticity vector lies normal to the plain of motion. Due to this, there are no gradients of the vorticity along the direction of the vorticity, and one can write the vorticity similarity equation (curl of Eq. 7) as:

$$\omega +\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}\widehat{})\omega +(\stackrel{}{G}\widehat{})\omega =0$$
(11)
I can demonstrate that these equations have no solutions using several observations. First, define the associated vector field $`\stackrel{}{H}=\alpha \stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{G}`$. This field is used to rewrite the vorticity similarity equations in two dimensions as:

$$\omega +(\stackrel{}{H}\widehat{})\omega =0$$
(12)
It is useful to define the dynamical system:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{r}}{ds}=\stackrel{}{H}$$
(13)
which yields characteristics for the vorticity. In terms of the trajectory $`\stackrel{}{r}(s)`$ one can write the vorticity equation along these characteristics as

$$\frac{d\omega }{ds}=\omega \text{.}$$
(14)
The dynamical system for $`\stackrel{}{r}(s)`$ is everywhere expanding, as $`\widehat{}\stackrel{}{H}=2\alpha `$ and $`\alpha `$ is positive. Nearly all trajectories starting out near the origin escape to infinity. Due to the (assumed) smoothness of the dynamical system, Eq. 13, there must be an invariant set near the origin which does not escape. As this calculation is restricted to two dimensions, the possible invariant sets (by the Poincare-Bendixon theorem ) may be fixed points or closed orbits. Along any characteristic $`\stackrel{}{r}(s)`$ the vorticity must be $`\omega (s)=\omega (0)e^s`$. At fixed points, by definition, $`\stackrel{}{H}=0`$, giving $`\omega =0`$ from Eq. 12 at those points. For closed orbits, the vorticity $`\omega `$ must also be zero so that after going around one orbit it returns to its original value. Points starting nearby the closed orbits or fixed points escape to large radius. As their initial vorticity must be zero, as they move out from near the origin their vorticity remains zero. From this one can understand that the vorticity is zero everywhere in the plain. The far field (large $`|\stackrel{}{x}|`$) solution for $`\stackrel{}{G}`$ must have a dependence rising like $`r^{(\alpha 1)/\alpha }`$, where the first two terms of Eq. 7 are dominant. As the vorticity is zero (i.e., $`\widehat{}\times \stackrel{}{G}=0`$), the vector field $`\stackrel{}{G}=\widehat{}\varphi `$ must be a gradient field with $`^2\varphi =0`$. The far field dependence is incompatible with a smooth Harmonic function $`\varphi `$ which must have an integer $`n`$ far field dependence $`r^n`$. The far field exponent $`(\alpha 1)/\alpha `$ is not an integer for all cases of interest $`\alpha >1`$. Thus, the only solution to the similarity equations in two dimensions are $`G=\omega =0`$. Another proof is also possible using integral methods .

## 5 Three dimensional similarity
equations - Lagrangian dynamics

The flow generated by $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ is also of considerable use in understanding the three dimensional case. Trajectories of Eq. 13 are directly associated with particle trajectories $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$ in lab coordinates. The invariant sets are especially important and correspond to trajectories which undergo the most singular Lagrangian motions. Trajectories in the laboratory frame follow a path $`d\stackrel{}{x}/dt=\stackrel{}{v}`$; this equation is equivalent to Eq. 13 under the identifications of $`s=\mathrm{ln}[(t_{}t)/t^{}]`$ and Eq. 5 for $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. The correspondence between these different quantities is summarized in the diagram:

$`t`$ $`\stackrel{\stackrel{}{v}}{}`$ $`\stackrel{}{x}`$   $`\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(t_{}t\right)/t^{}\right]`$ $``$  $``$ $`\stackrel{}{x}\left[t^{}/\left(t_{}t\right)\right]^\alpha /L^{}`$   $`s`$ $`\stackrel{\stackrel{}{H}}{}`$ $`\stackrel{}{r}`$     (15)
Note as $`(t_{}t)0`$, that $`s\mathrm{}`$. As the flow generated by $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ has divergence everywhere positive ($`\widehat{}\stackrel{}{H}=3\alpha `$), trajectories all flow outward toward large radius, and there must be repelling invariant sets in the vicinity of the origin (assuming of course that the similarity solution is smooth and exists!). Several types of invariant sets are possible: fixed points, closed orbits, or perhaps strange saddles 111 2-tori are excluded, since their interior volumes would be invariant, contradicting $`\widehat{}\stackrel{}{H}=3\alpha >0`$ which implies that all volumes grow exponentially as $`\mathrm{exp}(3\alpha s)`$ following the flow defined by Eq. 13.. Which type of invariant set will be determined by the precise form of the outer solution. Assuming these solutions exist, and pending a numerical solution, it is useful to explore the consequences of these invariant sets. Fixed points of the dynamical system Eq. 13 are defined by $`\stackrel{}{H}=0`$; we label them $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$. These points have a number of properties and yield testable prediction for the Lagrangian motion. At points $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$, one has that $`\alpha \stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{G}=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ from the definition of $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and the similarity equation (Eq. 7) with $`\stackrel{}{H}=0`$.

We can see why the non-existence proof for two dimensions fails in three by examining the vorticity equation in three dimensions (the curl of the similarity Eq. 7):

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }+(\stackrel{}{H}\widehat{})\stackrel{}{\omega }=(\stackrel{}{\omega }\widehat{})\stackrel{}{G}\text{.}$$
(16)
Rather than the vorticity being zero at the fixed points of Eq. 13, the vorticity must be a eigenvector of the gradient matrix with unit eigenvalue $`M\stackrel{}{\omega }=\stackrel{}{\omega }`$. Although the 2-D non-existence does not carry over to 3-D, I have yet been unable to show existence directly, numerics may give some evidence in future work.

From the equivolency of flows of $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and Lagrangian trajectories, one can calculate the form for observables due to the fixed points and limit cycles of the similarity flow. For a fixed point $`\stackrel{}{r}^{}`$ transformed to laboratory coordinates the trajectory is $`\stackrel{}{x}=L^{}[(t_{}t)/t^{}]^\alpha \stackrel{}{r}^{}+\stackrel{}{v_{}}t+\stackrel{}{x_{}}`$, where we have allowed for a background velocity and origin. The Lagrangian velocity would be $`\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}=\alpha L^{}[(t_{}t)/t^{}]^{\alpha 1}\stackrel{}{r}^{}/t^{}+\stackrel{}{v_{}}`$; acceleration would be $`\ddot{\stackrel{}{x}}=\alpha (\alpha 1)L^{}(t_{}t)^{\alpha 2}\stackrel{}{r}^{}/(t^{})^2`$. This acceleration diverges at the critical time, clearly in need of a cutoff due to viscosity or other physical intervention. These forms, as intermediate asymptotics are testable predictions for Lagrangian experiments and numerics – are events observed which hold such forms?

In the case of an invariant cycle in the flow of $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ one obtains a different type of motion. This rotating motion in similarity coordinates, with some characteristic frequency in $`s`$, yields an accelerating chirp of spiraling motion. For simplicity, let’s say some some similarity coordinate has harmonic motion $`r_1=A\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }s)`$. Carried to laboratory coordinates the motion is

$$x_1=AL^{}(\frac{t_{}t}{t^{}})^\alpha \mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ln}(\frac{t_{}t}{t^{}})]\text{.}$$
(17)
The laboratory Lagrangian frequency thus rises as $`(t_{}t)^1`$ while the radius collapses to zero as $`(t_{}t)^\alpha `$. Such motions may be related to the large accelerations observed in recent Lagrangian tracking experiments , and may account partially for the extreme intermittency seen in the acceleration distributions. It is a likelihood that a clear understanding of the viscous cutoff is needed to fully account for such distributions; some aspects of the viscous cutoff are discussed in Sec. 8. These calculations give a plausible specific cause for extreme Lagrangian accelerations – which is independent of the intense long-lived vortices which form an alternative explanation for those observations.

## 6 Far field behavior

The large $`r`$ behavior is particularly significant, as close to the critical time, the near field character has shrunk (in laboratory coordinates) into an insignificant volume, leaving a relatively large area displaying the far field behavior in its wake. For large $`r`$, one can calculate the behavior of three dimensional solutions of Eq. 7. Only the first and second terms are relevant, the nonlinear term and pressure are sub-dominant. In that case the resulting equation $`(1\alpha )\stackrel{}{G}+\alpha (\stackrel{}{r}\widehat{})\stackrel{}{G}=0`$ is analytically solvable:

$$\stackrel{}{G}=r^{(\alpha 1)/\alpha }\stackrel{}{f}(\theta ,\varphi )$$
(18)
for spherical coordinates $`r`$, $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$. The function $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ is a general $`S^2^3`$ vector field subject only to $`\widehat{}\stackrel{}{G}=0`$.

Thus observe that the far field radial dependence is fixed by $`\alpha `$, while the angular dependence is general. It has been conjectured  that Eq. 7 has solutions for all admitable far field forms, while it is important to emphasize solutions (numerical or analytical) have not yet been found.

The far field behavior has particular significance if one hopes to use these solutions to understand turbulence. The far field solution when $`\alpha =3/2`$, if applied in many events, would lead to velocity difference statistics associated with Kolmogorov scaling and the known scaling for the third order structure function. When $`\alpha =3/2`$ the far field behaves as $`\stackrel{}{G}r^{1/3}`$, which is retained in the lab frame velocity near the critical time. This connection in particular has been a motivation for seeking a connection between these Euler similarity solutions and Navier-Stokes turbulence. Why the $`\alpha =3/2`$ case may be prevalent is precisely unknown, but discussed in the conclusion.

## 7 Near field behavior

One can learn about the structure of the gradients at the fixed points by examining the similarity equation. Taking the gradient of that equation, to obtain a matrix equation for $`M=_iG_j`$, one obtains at the fixed points $`\stackrel{}{H}=0`$ that:

$$M+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_2=0\text{.}$$
(19)
This matrix Riccati equation is related to the quadratic nonlinearities in the Euler equations. Gibbon  has shown how quaternions can be used in this context to relate Euler equations and the equations of ideal magneto-hydrodynamics to a Schrödinger equation. Equation 20 yields nine constraints on the components of $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$. Rotating $`M`$ into a form where the symmetric part is diagonal, and given that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ is symmetric, there are eleven independent components between them. Solving Eq. 19 yields three types of solutions, each in two parameters. Further solutions come from permuting the axis in this form, or by rotations relaxing the diagonalization of the symmetric part of $`M`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& 0& 0\\ 0& b& 0\\ 0& 0& ab\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a(a+1)& 0& 0\\ 0& b(b+1)& 0\\ 0& 0& (a+b)^2(a+b)\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
$$\begin{array}{c}M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& a& f\\ 0& f& 1a\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& 0& 0\\ 0& a+a^2f^2& 0\\ 0& 0& a+a^2f^2\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
$$\begin{array}{c}M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& f\\ 0& 1& g\\ f& g& 2\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2f^2& fg& 0\\ fg& 2g^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 2f^2g^2\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
The gradient matrix at these fixed points gives rise to rapidly growing gradients in laboratory coordinates. At these points, taking the gradient of Eq. 3, yields:

$$\frac{v_i}{x_j}=Mv^{}\left(\frac{t_{}t}{t^{}}\right)^1$$
(23)
leading to the vorticity and strains all growing jointly and suddenly.

## 8 Viscous cutoff

One can obtain estimates for the small scale cutoff for these events by analyzing the relevant forces. For all events with $`\alpha >1`$ viscosity will be relevant at some late time, where the length scales become small enough for the local Reynolds number to be of order unity. Comparing the inertial forces with viscous forces for the scaling ansatz, $`(\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{})\stackrel{}{u}<\nu ^2\stackrel{}{u}`$ yields an expression for the time when (for smaller $`(t_{}t)`$) viscosity will be dominant. This happens when

$$\frac{tt_{}}{t^{}}<(R^{})^{1/(12\alpha )}\text{,}$$
(24)
where $`R^{}=u^{}L^{}/\nu `$. This leads to a definition of a crossover time $`t_k`$ where the equality holds above. At the crossover time, the length scale is

$$l_k=L^{}(R^{})^{\alpha /(12\alpha )}\text{;}$$
(25)
this corresponds to the Kolmogorov scale for that event, and depends on the value of $`\alpha `$. In particular, events with $`\alpha =3/2`$ have the normally defined Kolmogorov scale, while events with $`\alpha <3/2`$ have a reduced minimum scale. This expression is similar to those obtained for the Kolmogorov length in the multifractal description of turbulence, where $`l_kR^{1/(1h)}`$ for the Holder exponent $`h`$ .

This fluctuating Kolmogorov scale effects the maximum gradient observed in different events. Assuming that the crossover to viscous dominating times signals the end of the growth of the gradients, one can estimate that

$$(_iu_j)_k\frac{u^{}}{L^{}}(R^{})^{1/(2\alpha 1)}\text{,}$$
(26)
which depends on $`\alpha `$. This estimate serves for both strains and vorticity. The crossover acceleration then scales as the maximum value that the inertial term takes

$$a_k\frac{(u^{})^2}{L^{}}(R^{})^{(\alpha 2)/(2\alpha 1)}\text{.}$$
(27)
This leads to a prediction that the index $`\alpha `$ effects the maximum acceleration in a particular way. In the case $`\alpha <2`$, the crossover acceleration $`a_k`$ shrinks with increasing Reynolds number, while for $`\alpha >2`$, the crossover acceleration grows with acceleration. Presumably the viscosity caps the maximum acceleration, but these values still grow without bound with increasing Reynolds number. Note for all of these estimates $`\alpha =1/2`$ corresponding to the Leray solution  yields an uncapped singularity.

Another way that the maximum gradients may be capped comes about due to the outer solution. As these events must live in a finite domain, and must be patched onto realistic boundary conditions, the ideal form cannot exist out to large radius. Thus either through this departure in the far field, or by the outer condition deviating from the ideal form, the inner solution may miss the maximally focused condition before viscosity would cap the event.

## 9 Experimental observations

Although the main parts of this paper are analytical, with some turbulent gradient data in hand, I present some limited support for these ideas. A novel optical instrument has been utilized to measure the gradients $`_iu_j(t)`$ at the Kolmogorov scale (see  for details about the flow and instrument). Focusing on the most extreme gradient events, I presume that one needs to be both looking at the center of the event and near the critical time in order to have extremely large gradients. Since the measurement is Eulerian, solutions to Eq. 7 will both develop in place, and more probably, be swept by the measurement volume. As these are swept by, the time dependence reflects the spatial dependence of the field; near the critical time this is the far field dependence.

The far field has velocities scaling as $`v_ir^{(\alpha 1)/\alpha }`$ so that gradients behave as $`_iu_jr^{1/\alpha }`$. The dissipation per unit mass $`ϵ=(\nu /2)_{ij}(_iu_j+_ju_i)^2r^{2/\alpha }`$. Fig. 1 shows one example of a time trace for a large dissipation event. As events are swept by one might occasion to see $`ϵ(t)t^{2/\alpha }`$. An extensive data set of gradients has been examined for events where the dissipation behaves as

$$ϵ(t)(t_{}t)^\delta $$
(28)
for some $`t_1<t<t_2<t_{}`$. So that they are at least minimally serious scaling I require at least one decade of scaling, i.e. $`(t_1t_{})/(t_2t_{})=10`$ with a coefficient of regression for a fit to Eq. 28, $`R^2>0.98`$. The event shown in Fig. 1 is redrawn around the large dissipation growth showing (Fig. 2) one example of such a scaling. Figure 3 shows a histogram of the $`\alpha =2/\delta `$ values for all 892 events observed of this type. Note that the Kolmogorov value $`\alpha =3/2`$ occurs near the observed maxima. These observations are only intended to partially support the analysis discussed as the bulk of this paper. Further experimental testing will be discussed elsewhere so as to not distract from the main points presented here.

## 10 Conclusions

The observation of events with $`1<=\alpha <3`$ may be associated with the much prior commented on multiscaling of the velocity field . The solutions corresponding to K41 statistics is $`\alpha =3/2`$ Why these solutions are dominant may be of similar reasons to the Burgers case, where the same exponent also dominates. One might hypothesize that locations where the gradients obey $`M+M^2=\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ and the second derivatives ($`_i_jv_k`$) vanish may be the locations susceptible to this types of blowup – in analogy to inviscid Burgers shock development. The dominance then of the cubic terms in the velocity near field leads, through a characteristic collapse, to $`\alpha =3/2`$ events. While other types of $`\alpha `$ events also appear possible, a selection mechanism is not obvious.

And then one must deal with the fact that these solutions are self-similar around one point in time and space, while turbulence is a statistically self-affine (or multi-affine) phenomena. What is needed is a number of events associated with Eq. 7 occurring at many spatial locations and times. This may be accommodated if these solutions give rise to the growth of additional events nearby due to the form the intermediate field takes. In particular, if a sufficiently complicated angular structure for the far field occurs, when that must flow into the relatively simple near field, there may be locations with the right type of structure (perhaps in the second order derivative field) which gives rise to new growing collapse events.

Finally, these events are distinct from long lived vortices others have observed, but perhaps causally connected. A sudden growth of the gradients around a point might be expected when two tube-like vortices collide obliquely . Also, I acknowledge that more complicated solutions, perhaps with less trivial length scaling may also play an important role.

Acknowledgements

I would like to greatfully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation and the Research Corporation, and stimulating advice from T. Antonsen, J. Gibbon, R.M. Kerr, C.D. Levermore, J. Lister, E. Ott, R. Pego, K.R. Sreenivasan, and E. Tadmor. The experiments could not have been conducted without the efforts and advice of B.W. Zeff, D.D. Lanterman, R. McAllister, R. Roy, and E.J. Kostelich.


format: text

text:
# Direct Feeding of the Black Hole at the Galactic Center with Radial Gas Streams from Close-In Stellar Winds

## 1 Introduction

Early in the development of accretion flow theory, it had been realized that angular momentum can severely limit the accretion rate of gas onto a black hole relative to the spherical infall value (the so-called Bondi (1952) rate). Indeed, most of the hot gas revealed by recent X-ray observations within $`0.1`$ pc of the Galactic center (Baganoff et al. 2003), is apparently not flowing into Sgr A\* , the massive black hole there (Quataert 2003). The latest models of the radiatively inefficient accretion flow around Sgr A\* estimate the accretion rate of gas into the black hole horizon at $`10^8M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, several orders of magnitude below the Bondi rate (Yuan, Narayan, Quataert 2003). This low accretion rate is required by the frequency dependence of the linear polarization data (Bower et al. 2003), in combination with the synchrotron radio flux and the recently detected infrared emission from Sgr A\* (Genzel et al 2003b; Ghez et al. 2003c). The absolute minimum accretion rate required by the bolometric luminosity of Sgr A\* ($`10^{36}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) is $`2\times 10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1(ϵ/0.1)^1`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the radiative efficiency of the accreting mass.

The disparity between the large gas reservoir available at the outer radius of influence of Sgr A\* and the small mass that actually flows into its horizon, has inspired a variety of accretion models in which the mass inflow rate diminishes with decreasing radius, due to convection (Quataert & Gruzinov 2000a,b; Narayan et al. 2000), turbulence (Coker & Melia 1997; Pen et al. 2003), or outflows (Begelman & Blandford 1999; Yuan et al. 2002). In this Letter, we highlight the significance of an important ingredient that was omitted by these models, namely the powerful winds from known stars that are embedded within the dilute accretion flow towards Sgr A\*.

Sgr A\* was recently found to be surrounded by a cluster of young, massive stars. Over the past year, three of these stars, named SO-2, SO-16, and SO-19 by Ghez et al. (2003c; see parallel work by Schödel et al. 2003), were inferred to have orbits with peri-centric distances of $`100`$AU or $`10^3`$ Schwarzschild radii from the central black hole. The detection of a Br$`\gamma `$ and He I features in of the spectrum of SO-2 indicates that it is probably an O8-B0 star, while the other bright stars are also likely to be O-B stars, consistent with the lack of a CO absorption feature in their spectrum (Ghez et al. 2003a; Eisenhauer et al. 2003).

The winds of O-stars on the main sequence have typical mass loss rates of $`\dot{M}_w=10^7`$$`10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and speeds in the range $`v_w=1`$$`3\times 10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Puls et al. 1996; Repolust, Puls, & Herrero 2003). In §2.1, we show that SO-2, SO-16, and SO-19 can supply the required low-angular momentum gas that fuels the emission from Sgr A\* without requiring viscous transport of angular momentum. To demonstrate this point, we adopt the simplest model in which the radial gas streams move on ballistic Keplerian orbits. Gas with higher angular momentum is assumed, for simplicity, to be driven out of the system, as inferred to be case at the Bondi radius (Quataert 2003). In §2.3 we show that the characteristic ram-pressure of the radial streams is well above the thermal pressure of the diffuse hot gas detected by the Chandra X-ray Observatory (Baganoff et al. 2003), making the ballistic approach viable. In §2.2 we illustrate how the specific orbital parameters of the close-in stars can be used to predict the long-term modulation of the radio and infrared flux of Sgr A\*. Finally, we discuss the implications of these results in §3.

## 2 Direct Flow of Gas Into the Black Hole Horizon

### 2.1 Method of Calculation

We consider the simplest model in which the gas elements move on ballistic Keplerian orbits. This assumption is justified if: (i) viscosity is sufficiently weak so that mainly gas on nearly radial orbits approaches the horizon of Sgr A\* ; (ii) the inflow of low angular momentum gas is dominated by one stellar wind at a time so that multiple gas streams do not collide; and (iii) the wind ram pressure is much higher than the gas into which it propagates, so that the low-angular momentum gas is not deflected by hydrodynamic forces on its radial trajectory towards the black hole horizon. We justify the latter two conditions in §2.3.

The mass of gas directed into the compact emission region around the black hole horizon is the sum of all gas elements sent out from a stellar wind with angular momentum per unit mass smaller than some critical value, $`J_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (see Fig. 1). We write,

$$J_{\mathrm{max}}=\eta \left(\frac{4GM}{c}\right),$$
(1)
where $`M=4\times 10^6M_{}`$ is the black hole mass (Ghez et al. 2003b; Schödel et al. 2003), and $`4GM/c`$ is the maximum angular momentum with which the gas would enter directly into the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole (see equation 14.2.12 in Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). For a nearly radial trajectory starting at the star, we find that $`\eta =0.5x/(x1)^{1/2}`$, where $`x=r_{\mathrm{min}}/(2GM/c^2)`$ is the distance of closest approach to Sgr A\* (in Schwarzschild radii units) of the ballistic gas orbit111This result is obtained by setting $`\stackrel{~}{E}1`$ and solving $`V(r)=\stackrel{~}{E}`$ in equation 12.4.25 of Shapiro & Teukolsky (1983).. In popular emission models (Melia et al. 2001; Melia, Liu, & Coker 2001; Liu & Melia 2002a; Yuan et al. 2002; Yuan et al. 2003), most of the bolometric luminosity of Sgr A\* is produced within $`30`$ Schwarzschild radii, implying $`\eta 2.8`$ for the wind gas to join the emission region directly from its orbit. Next, let us calculate the fraction of the wind material that has an orbital angular momentum $`|J|<J_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for a star at a radius $`r`$ in an orbit with an eccentricity $`e`$ and a semi-major axis $`a`$.

The low angular-momentum gas is confined to a narrow cone centered on an angle $`\alpha `$ relative to the direction of Sgr A\* (see Fig. 1), such that

$$v_\theta +v_w\mathrm{sin}\alpha =0,$$
(2)
where $`v_w`$ is the wind speed, $`v_\theta =\mathrm{}/r`$ is the tangential component of the orbital velocity of the star (using the polar coordinates $`(r,\theta )`$ in the orbital plane), and $`\mathrm{}=[GMa(1e^2)]^{1/2}`$ is the orbital angular momentum of the star. Note that condition (2) may be satisfied only through a portion of the stellar orbit that is sufficiently far from Sgr A\* so that $`v_w`$ is larger than $`v_\theta r^1`$; elsewhere, we set the mass deposition rate into Sgr A\* to zero (see the gaps of vanishing $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ in Fig. 2). The small opening angle of the Sgr A\* acceptance cone, $`\delta \alpha `$, is defined by the condition,

$$v_\theta +v_w\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\delta )=\frac{J_{\mathrm{max}}}{r}.$$
(3)
Using the small-angle approximation, $`\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\delta )\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\delta \mathrm{cos}\alpha `$, we find

$$\delta =\frac{J_{\mathrm{max}}}{v_wr\mathrm{cos}\alpha },$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\left[1(\mathrm{}/v_wr)^2\right]^{1/2}`$ .

We can now evaluate the fraction of the wind mass that is channeled through the acceptance cone of the emission region around the black hole horizon. Assuming that the wind outflow is spherically-symmetric in the star rest-frame, this fraction is

$$\frac{\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\dot{M}_w}=\frac{\pi \delta ^2}{4\pi }=\left(\frac{J_{\mathrm{max}}}{2v_wr}\right)^2\left(1\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{v_w^2r^2}\right)^1.$$
(5)
For the characteristic values of $`v_w1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`r10^3`$ AU, one gets $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}5\times 10^3(\eta /3)^2\dot{M}_w`$.

If the gas element leaves the star at a time $`t`$, then it will reach the black hole on a radial orbit at a time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be easily calculated from the initial radial distance of the star $`r`$, and the initial radial velocity of the gas,

$$u_r=\frac{dr}{dt}\pm v_w\left[1\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{v_wr}\right)^2\right]^{1/2},$$
(6)
where there are either zero, one or two allowed cones under the restriction that $`u_r<0`$. The timescale for the gas to be drained into the black hole horizon from the compact emission region around it (Hawley, Balbus, & Stone 2001), is expected to be short compared to the timescales of interest here and so we neglect it.

### 2.2 Numerical Results

Figure 2 shows the numerical solution of equations (5) and (6) for $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ as a function of $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, given the orbital parameters of SO-2 (solid line), SO-16 (dashed), and SO-19 (dotted), as summarized in Table 3 of Ghez et al. (2003). The evolution of the mass deposition rate into the black hole horizon is presented for the values $`v_w=1\times 10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (upper panel) and $`3\times 10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (lower panel), that bracket the range of wind speeds deduced from observed spectra of O stars (Puls et al. 1996; Repolust et al. 2003).

For the value of $`\dot{M}_w10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ found in bright Galactic O stars on the main sequence (Puls et al. 1996; Repolust et al. 2003), we get a total feeding rate of $`10^8(\eta /3)^2M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, comparable to the value required by the polarization data in accretion models of Sgr A\* (Yuan et al. 2003; Melia, Liu & Coker 2000; Bromley, Melia, & Liu 2001). Most of the wind material spreads over the highly eccentric orbit of its parent star, and so we find that $`\dot{M}_w10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ for SO-2, SO-16, or SO-19 yields electron densities below the canonical inflow model of Yuan et al. (2003) with the resultant Faraday rotation measure satisfying current polarization constraints.

It is natural to expect the luminosity of Sgr A\* to scale with $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}^\beta `$, where $`\beta `$ ranges between 1 (for disk or jet emission with a constant radiative efficiency) and 2 (for radiatively inefficient flows). The emission spectrum can be generically explained by synchrotron and inverse-Compton processes (Melia & Falcke 2001; Yuan et al. 2002; Yuan et al. 2003) in a hot, magnetized gas within tens of Schwarzschild radii from Sgr A\* , independent of the exact accretion geometry. The radial streams that reach this region would likely dissipate a fraction of their kinetic energy through shocks, and settle into a rotationally supported configuration around Sgr A\* (see Hawley, Balbus, & Stone 2001, for the subsequent evolution of such as torus). The interaction of the freely-falling material with the rotating torus may resemble the situation in wind-fed X-ray binaries (Beloborodev & Illarionov 2001). The magnetic fields carried by the infalling streams could be amplified by plasma instabilities and produce the synchrotron luminosity of Sgr A\*.

### 2.3 Are Ballistic Orbits Plausible?

The properties of the accretion flow under consideration here resemble the conditions in wind-fed X-ray binaries (Illarionov & Beloborodev 2001, and references therein). The accreting matter in such binaries originates in a wind from an OB star with similar mass loss rates to those assumed here, and is thought to freely-fall towards the boundary of the accretor (be it the surface of a neutron star or the horizon of a black hole) where the X-rays are produced. The ballistic approach adopted here had been used successfully to derive the accretion rate and the corresponding X-ray luminosity of accreting neutron stars (Illarionov & Beloborodev 2001).

Figure 2 illustrates that at most times there is only one gas stream dominating the mass deposition rate into Sgr A\*. Collisions of multiple streams with comparable momentum flux are rare. The dominant gas streams follow ballistic orbits as long as their ram pressure, $`p_w=\rho _wv_w^2`$, exceeds the thermal pressure of the dilute gas through which they propagate, $`p_{\mathrm{th}}`$. We find,

$$p_w=\frac{\dot{M}_wv_w}{4\pi d^2}=3\times 10^3\dot{M}_{w,6}v_{w,2}\left(\frac{10^3\mathrm{AU}}{d}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{keV}}{\mathrm{cm}^3},$$
(7)
where $`\dot{M}_{w,6}(\dot{M}_w/10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1)`$, $`v_{w,2}(v_w/2000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)`$, and $`d`$ is the distance from the star (ignoring gravitational focusing by Sgr A\* ). The diffuse X-ray emitting gas, spread over a scale of $`10^4`$ AU from Sgr A\* , has a characteristic temperature of $`1.3`$ keV and a density $`30\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (Baganoff et al. 2003), implying a background thermal pressure, $`p_{\mathrm{th}}40\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, which is below the ram pressure of the radially infalling streams at $`r10^4`$AU. As each stream falls towards the black hole, it gets accelerated and compressed and so its ram pressure increases. Since its infall speed scales as $`r^{1/2}`$ and its surface area must decrease as $`r^2`$, we expect that the ram pressure would scale as $`p_wr^3`$ and that the condition $`p_w>p_{\mathrm{th}}`$ will be maintained throughout the trajectory of the stream. Our simplifying assumption (which we intend to critically examine with a direct numerical simulation in the future) is that most of the outer gas detected by Chandra or any other gas with significant angular momentum is not able to flow inwards similarly to the radial streams in the absence of efficient angular momentum transport. Note that a clumpy wind would enhance the survivability of the radial streams and potentially lead to short-term variability of Sgr A\*.

The fate of wind gas with angular momentum above $`J_{\mathrm{max}}`$ remains an interesting open question. The linear polarization data (Bower et al. 2003) implies that most of this gas does not reach the vicinity of the black hole. Since most of the energy dissipation occurs at $`10`$ Schwarzschild radii and the gravitational binding energy per particle decreases considerably at larger radii, we conjecture that heat flux from the inner regions unbinds the outer gas and expels it in an outflow (similarly to the conditions at the Bondi radius; see Quataert 2003).

## 3 Discussion

We have found that radial gas streams from the winds of massive stars with recently discovered orbits that approach within $`10^3`$ Schwarzschild radii of the black hole at the Galactic center, can supply the required mass flow near the central black hole horizon and power the radio and infrared emission of Sgr A\*. For O star winds with a total $`\dot{M}_w10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, we get that SO-2, SO-16, and SO-19 can supply as much as $`10^8(\eta /3)^2M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ of gas in orbits directed straight into the emission region around the black hole horizon. The total mass inflow rate would increase if angular momentum of other gas elements is transported away by magnetic or turbulent stresses. The surprising existence of massive stars in orbits with closest approach distances of $`100`$ AU poses a major puzzle to theories of star formation (Genzel et al. 2003a), and was not incorporated in previous modeling of the gas flow around Sgr A\* (e.g. Coker & Melia 1997; Yuan et al. 2003).

The parameters of the winds could in principle be determined through detailed spectroscopic observations of the stars in the Sgr A\* cluster. Once the wind properties of the individual stars are constrained, our accretion model will be easily testable since it correlates the long-term ($`>`$month) variability of the radio or infrared emission from Sgr A\* with the orbital phases of the stars around it (see Fig. 1). The simplified calculation presented in this Letter can be improved using a full hydrodynamic simulation and compared against observational data on the long-term variability of Sgr A\* (Zhao et al. 2003) for different choices of $`v_w`$ and $`\dot{M}_w`$ per individual star (for an alternative source of this variability, see Liu & Melia 2002b). A proper numerical treatment is challenging since only a small fraction of the gas mass follows the radial orbits of interest here, and since the inflow spans several orders of magnitude in radius - requiring a large dynamic range in spatial and temporal resolution. Previous accretion simulations (such as those by Coker, Melia, & Falcke 1997, Proga & Begelman 2003 or Rockefeller et al. 2003) did not meet the demanding requirements of this accretion problem.

Sgr A\* may be surrounded by fainter stars that have not been detected so far, even though they dominate the steady mass flow into the black hole. However, winds from massive stars are driven by radiation pressure, and so the stars dominating the fluctuations in the mass flow into the black hole horizon should have the highest luminosities and be included in the current census of bright infrared sources near Sgr A\*. Massive stars that are much further away also possess powerful winds (Krabbe et al. 1991; Najarro et al. 1997; Coker & Melia 1997; Quataert 2003), but their individual contributions to the radial mass flux near the horizon of Sgr A\* is reduced compared to the close-in stars222Statistically, the net mass flux is dominated by the close-in stars as long as the number density run of wind sources is steeper than $`r^1`$, as is the case around Sgr A\* (Genzel et al. 2003a)., since $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}r^2`$ in equation (5). For example, IRS 16C with its $`\dot{M}_w8\times 10^5M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and $`v_w650\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`r2\times 10^4`$AU, and IRS 13E1 with its $`\dot{M}_w8\times 10^4M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ and $`v_w1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ at $`r4\times 10^4`$AU (Quataert, Narayan, & Reid 1999), produce at most a radial mass flux comparable to that of SO-2 if the latter has $`\dot{M}_w10^6M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Nevertheless, the steady mass flux into Sgr A\* may still be dominated by undetected stars or by gas that originates at large distances and loses its angular momentum through viscous transport (Yuan et al. 2003). In this case, the winds from the close-in stars would only modulate a fraction of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{BH}}`$, but their fractional contribution could still be identified through the predictable short-term variability that their orbits introduce to the luminosity of Sgr A\*.

Acknowledgements

I thank Jean-Pierre Lasota, Eric Pfahl, Eliot Quataert, Mark Reid, George Rybicki, and Eli Waxman for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-13292, and by NSF grants AST-0071019, AST-0204514.