format: text

text:
# Calculation of renormalized viscosity and resistivity in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

## I Introduction

The Renormalization Group (RG) technique provided an important tool for understanding of the phenomena of phase transitions and critical phenomena. Motivated by this success, researchers have applied this technique to turbulence and other nonequilibrium systems. In this paper we apply RG to magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence.

Forster et al.  first applied dynamical RG procedure to the analysis of Navier-Stokes and Burgers equations, both stirred by random forces. They eliminated the large-wavenumber modes and included the effects of nonlinearity in the effective viscosity. Later, DeDominicis and Martin , Fournier and Frisch , Yakhot and Orszag , many others studied various aspects of RG for fluid turbulence, but all of them considered certain form of external forcing. McComb and his coworkers ( and reference therein) instead applied self-consistent RG procedure; here the energy spectrum was assumed to be Kolmogorov’s spectrum, and the renormalized viscosity was computed iteratively. We have adopted a similar scheme for MHD turbulence.

Fournier et al. , Camargo and Tasso , and Liang and Diamond  employed RG technique to MHD turbulence on the similar lines as adopted by Forster et al.  for fluid turbulence. Fournier et al.  found that for $`d>d_c2.8`$, there are two nontrivial regimes: a kinetic regime where the renormalization of the transport coefficients is due to kinetic small-scales; and a magnetic regime where it is due to the magnetic small-scales. In dimensions $`2dd_c`$, there is no stable fixed point for turbulence with sufficiently strong external currents. Camargo and Tasso  studied the effective (renormalized) viscosity and resistivity and concluded that negative viscosity and resistivity are not permissible except in certain cases. Liang and Diamond  showed that no RG fixed point exists in 2D MHD turbulence. All the above authors however do not give any clear idea about the energy spectrum of MHD turbulence, which still remains controversial. However, Verma  used technique similar to that of McComb and Coworkers ( and references therein) and showed that Kolmogrov’s spectrum is a consistent solution of MHD RG equations.

Kraichnan  and Irosnikov  first gave phenomenology of steady-state, homogeneous, and isotropic MHD turbulence. They argued that the kinetic and magnetic energy spectra ($`E^u(k)`$ and $`E^b(k)`$ respectively) are

$$E^u(k)=E^b(k)=A(\mathrm{\Pi }B_0)^{1/2}k^{3/2}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the total energy cascade rate, $`B_0`$ is the mean magnetic field or the magnetic field of the largest eddy, and $`A`$ is a universal constant of order one. Later Matthaeus and Zhou , and Zhou and Matthaeus  proposed a generalized phenomenology in which the cascade rates $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ and energy spectra $`E^\pm (k)`$ of Elsässer variables $`𝐳^\pm (=𝐮\pm 𝐛)`$ are related by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm =\frac{A^2E^+(k)E^{}(k)k^3}{B_0+\sqrt{kE^\pm (k)}}$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is a constant. In the limit $`B_0=0`$, we can immediately obtain

$$E^\pm (k)=K^\pm \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm \right)^{4/3}}{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\right)^{2/3}}k^{5/3}$$
(3)
where $`K^\pm `$ are Kolmogorov’s constants for MHD. The Eq. (3) was first derived by Marsch .

The energy spectrum of the solar wind, a well known observational platform for MHD turbulence, is closer to $`k^{5/3}`$ than to $`k^{3/2}`$ . In addition, the recent numerical  and theoretical  work support Kolmogorov-like phenomenology for MHD turbulence. Curiously, Kolmogorov’s spectrum is observed even in the presence of a mean magnetic field. To understand theoretically, Verma , Sridhar and Goldreich , and Goldreich and Sridhar  applied field theoretic techniques to MHD turbulence. Verma  showed that the mean magnetic field $`B_0`$ responsible for the Alfvén effect gets renormalized in strong turbulence ($`B_0(k)k^{1/3}`$). When we substitute the renormalized $`B_0`$ in Eq. (1), the energy spectrum turns out to be proportional to $`k^{5/3}`$. Sridhar and Goldreich , and Goldreich and Sridhar  used wave interaction picture and showed that the energy spectrum is anisotropic, and it follows Kolmogorov’s powerlaw for strong turbulence.

In this paper we calculate the renormalized viscosity and resistivity for MHD. Here we test whether Kolmogorov’s spectrum is a consistent solution of RG or not if the turbulence is forced at large-scale. We carry out wavenumber elimination and obtain recursive RG equations. Kolmogorov’s spectrum is substituted for the correlation function in the recursive RG equation. After that we attempt to obtain a convergent solution for the renormalized viscosity and resistivity. If the convergent solution exists, then the Kolmogorov’s spectrum is one of the correct choices for the energy spectrum of MHD turbulence. For these cases we compute many important quantities, e.g., renormalized viscosity, renormalized resistivity, cascade rates, etc., in a reasonably simple manner. In this paper we report the calculation of renormalized viscosity and resistivity, and in the subsequent paper (referred to as paper II) we will report the cascade rate calculation.

There are two field variables in MHD: the velocity fluctuation $`𝐮`$ and the magnetic field fluctuation $`𝐛`$. The quantities of interest are Kinetic energy (KE), magnetic energy (ME), total energy (KE+ME), and cross helicity ($`H_c=𝐮𝐛`$). The dimensionless parameters used in this paper are the ratio of twice the cross helicity and the total energy, called the normalized cross helicity $`\sigma _c`$ ($`\sigma _c=2H_c/(KE+ME)`$), and the ratio of KE and ME, called the Alfvén ratio $`r_A`$. In this paper we have assumed that the mean magnetic field is zero, and so are magnetic and kinetic helicities, i.e., we are considering nonhelical plasma. The calculation of the renormalized parameters is quite complex for arbitrary $`\sigma _c`$ and $`r_A`$. Therefore, we limit ourselves to two limiting cases: (1) $`\sigma _c=0`$ and whole range of $`r_A`$; (2) $`\sigma _c1`$ and $`r_A=1`$. Even though full range of $`\sigma _c`$ is observed in terrestrial and extraterrestrial plasmas, the case $`\sigma _c0`$ is most pronounced.

The outline of the paper is as follows: in sections 2 and 3 we compute the renormalized viscosity and resistivity for the cases $`\sigma _c=0`$ and $`\sigma _c1`$ respectively. Section 4 contains the summary and conclusions.

## II RG Calculation: $`\sigma _c=0`$

In this section we will calculate the renormalized viscosity and resistivity of MHD equations for zero mean magnetic field and zero cross helicity ($`\sigma _c=0`$). In this case, the RG equations in terms of velocity and magnetic field variables are simpler as compared to those with Elsässer variables. Therefore, we will work with $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐛`$ variables. We take the following form of Kolmogorov’s spectrum for KE \[$`E^u(k)`$\] and ME \[$`E^b(k)`$\]

$`E^u(k)`$ $`=`$ $`K^u\mathrm{\Pi }^{2/3}k^{5/3},`$ (4)
$`E^b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`E^u(k)/r_A,`$ (5)
where $`K^u`$ is Kolmogorov’s constant for MHD turbulence, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the total energy flux. In the limit $`\sigma _c=0`$, we have $`E^+=E^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+=\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }`$ \[cf. Eq. (3)\]. Therefore, $`E_{total}(k)=E^+(K)=E^u(k)+E^b(k)`$ and

$$K^+=K^u(1+r_A^1)$$
(6)
With this preliminaries we start our RG calculation. The incompressible MHD equations in the Fourier space are

$`\left(i\omega +\nu k^2\right)u_i(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}P_{ijm}^+(𝐤){\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{p}[u_j(\widehat{p})u_m(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})b_j(\widehat{p})b_m(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]}`$ (7)
$`\left(i\omega +\eta k^2\right)b_i(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`iP_{ijm}^{}(𝐤){\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{p}[u_j(\widehat{p})b_m(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]}`$ (8)
$`k_iu_i(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
$`k_ib_i(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
with

$`P_{ijm}^+(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`k_jP_{im}(𝐤)+k_mP_{ij}(𝐤);`$ (11)
$`P_{im}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{im}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ik_m}{k^2}};`$ (12)
$`P_{ijm}^{}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`k_j\delta _{im}k_m\delta _{ij};`$ (13)
$`\widehat{k}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐤,\omega );`$ (14)
$`d\widehat{p}`$ $`=`$ $`d𝐩d\omega /(2\pi )^{d+1}.`$ (15)
Here $`\nu `$ and $`\eta `$ are the viscosity and the resistivity respectively, and $`d`$ is the space dimension.

In our RG procedure the wavenumber range $`(k_N,k_0)`$ is divided logarithmically into $`N`$ shells. The $`n`$th shell is $`(k_n,k_{n1})`$ where $`k_n=h^nk_0(h<1)`$. In the following discussion, we carry out the elimination of the first shell $`(k_1,k_0)`$ and obtain the modified MHD equations. We then proceed iteratively to eliminate higher shells and get a general expression for the modified MHD equations. The renormalization group procedure is as follows:

1. We divide the spectral space into two parts: 1. the shell $`(k_1,k_0)=k^>`$, which is to be eliminated; 2. $`(k_N,k_1)=k^<`$, set of modes to be retained. Note that $`\nu _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ denote the viscosity and resistivity before the elimination of the first shell.
2. We rewrite Eqs. (7, 8) for $`k^<`$ and $`k^>`$. The equations for $`u_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ and $`b_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ modes are

$`\left(i\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{uu}(k)\right)u_i^<(\widehat{k})+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{ub}(k)b_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}P_{ijm}^+(𝐤){\displaystyle }d\widehat{p}([u_j^<(\widehat{p})u_m^<(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]`$ (18)
$`+2[u_j^<(\widehat{p})u_m^>(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]+[u_j^>(\widehat{p})u_m^>(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]`$
$`\text{Similar terms for }b)`$
$`\left(i\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bb}(k)\right)b_i^<(\widehat{k})+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bu}(k)u_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`iP_{ijm}^{}(𝐤){\displaystyle }d\widehat{p}([u_j^<(\widehat{p})b_m^<(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]`$ (21)
$`+[u_j^<(\widehat{p})b_m^>(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})+u_j^>(\widehat{p})b_m^<(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]`$
$`+[u_j^>(\widehat{p})b_m^>(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})])`$
The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$s appearing in the equations are usually called the “self-energy” in Quantum field theory language. In the first iteration, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{uu}=\nu _{(0)}k^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bb}=\eta _{(0)}k^2`$, while the other two $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$s are zero. The equation for $`u_i^>(\widehat{k})`$ modes can be obtained by interchanging $`<`$ and $`>`$ in the above equations.
3. The terms given in the second and third brackets in the Right-hand side of Eqs. (18, 21) are calculated perturbatively. Since we are interested in the statistical properties of $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐛`$ fluctuations, we perform the usual ensemble average of the system . We assume that $`𝐮^>(\widehat{k})`$ and $`𝐛^>(\widehat{k})`$ have gaussian distributions with zero mean, while $`𝐮^<(\widehat{k})`$ and $`𝐛^<(\widehat{k})`$ are unaffected by the averaging process. Hence,

$`u_i^>(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (22)
$`b_i^>(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`u_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`u_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ (24)
$`b_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`b_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ (25)
and

$`u_i^>(\widehat{p})u_j^>(\widehat{q})`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{uu}(\widehat{p})\delta (\widehat{p}+\widehat{q})`$ (26)
$`b_i^>(\widehat{p})b_j^>(\widehat{q})`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{bb}(\widehat{p})\delta (\widehat{p}+\widehat{q})`$ (27)
$`u_i^>(\widehat{p})b_j^>(\widehat{q})`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{ub}(\widehat{p})\delta (\widehat{p}+\widehat{q})`$ (28)
The triple order correlations $`X_i^>(\widehat{k})X_j^>(\widehat{p})X_m^>(\widehat{q})`$ are zero due to Gaussian nature of the fluctuations. Here, $`X`$ stands for $`u`$ or $`b`$. In addition, we also neglect the contribution from the triple nonlinearity $`X_i^<(\widehat{k})X_j^<(\widehat{p})X_m^<(\widehat{q})`$. The last assumption is used in many of the turbulence RG calculations . Refer to Zhou and Vahala  for a discussion on the importance of the triple nonlinearity.
4. The details of the perturbative calculation is given in Appendix A. To the first order, the second bracketed terms of Eqs. (18, 21) vanish, but the nonvanishing third bracketed terms yield corrections to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$s. Eqs. (18, 21) can now be approximated by

$`\left(i\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{uu}+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{uu}\right)u_i^<(\widehat{k})+\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{ub}+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{ub}\right)b_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}P_{ijm}^+(𝐤){\displaystyle }d\widehat{p}[u_j^<(\widehat{p})u_m^<(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})`$ (30)
$`b_j^<(\widehat{p})b_m^<(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]`$
$`\left(i\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bb}+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bb}\right)b_i^<(\widehat{k})+\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bu}+\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bu}\right)u_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`iP_{ijm}^{}(𝐤){\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{p}[u_j^<(\widehat{p})b_m^<(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]}`$ (31)
with

$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{uu}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}d\widehat{p}[S(k,p,q)G^{uu}(\widehat{p})C^{uu}(\widehat{q})S_6(k,p,q)G^{bb}(\widehat{p})C^{bb}(\widehat{q})`$ (33)
$`+S_6(k,p,q)G^{ub}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})S(k,p,q)G^{bu}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})]`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{ub}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}d\widehat{p}[S(k,p,q)G^{uu}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})+S_5(k,p,q)G^{ub}(\widehat{p})C^{uu}(\widehat{q})`$ (35)
$`+S(k,p,q)G^{bu}(\widehat{p})C^{bb}(\widehat{q})S_5(k,p,q)G^{bb}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})]`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bu}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}d\widehat{p}[S_8(k,p,q)G^{uu}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})+S_{10}(k,p,q)G^{bb}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})`$ (37)
$`+S_{12}(k,p,q)G^{ub}(\widehat{p})C^{bb}(\widehat{q})S_7(k,p,q)G^{bu}(\widehat{p})C^{uu}(\widehat{q})]`$
$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bb}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}d\widehat{p}[S_8(k,p,q)G^{uu}(\widehat{p})C^{bb}(\widehat{q})+S_9(k,p,q)G^{bb}(\widehat{p})C^{uu}(\widehat{q})`$ (39)
$`+S_{11}(k,p,q)G^{ub}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})S_9(k,p,q)G^{bu}(\widehat{p})C^{ub}(\widehat{q})]`$
The quantities $`S_i(k,p,q)`$ are given in the Appendix B. The integral $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is to be done over the first shell.

The full-fledge calculation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$s is quite involved. Therefore, we take two special cases: (1) $`C^{ub}=0`$ or $`\sigma _c=0`$; and (2) $`C^{ub}C^{uu}C^{ub}`$ or $`\sigma _c1`$. In this section we will discuss only the case $`\sigma _c=0`$. The other case will be taken up in the next section. A word of caution is in order here. In our calculation the parameters used are $`\sigma _c(k)=2C^{ub}(k)/(C^{uu}(k)+C^{bb}(k))`$ and $`r_A(k)=E^u(k)/E^b(k)`$. These parameters differ from the global $`\sigma _c`$ and $`r_A`$, yet we have restricted ourselves to the limiting cases of constant $`\sigma _c(k)`$ and $`r_A(k)`$ because of simplicity.

When $`\sigma _c=0`$, an inspection of the self-energy diagrams shows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ub}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{bu}=0`$, and $`G^{ub}=G^{bu}=0`$. Clearly, the equations become much simpler because of the diagonal nature of matrices $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The two quantities of interest $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{uu}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{(0)}^{bb}`$ will be given by

$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\widehat{p}\left(S(k,p,q)G^{uu}(p)C^{uu}(q)S_6(k,p,q)G^{bb}(p)C^{bb}(q)\right)`$ (40)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\widehat{p}\left(S_8(k,p,q)G^{uu}(p)C^{bb}(q)+S_9(k,p,q)G^{bb}(p)C^{uu}(q)\right)`$ (41)
The expressions for $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s involves correlation functions and Green’s function, which are themselves functions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s. In earlier RG calculations (see e.g. ) the correlation function $`C(\widehat{k})`$ is function of forcing noise spectrum. In our self-consistent scheme we assume that we are in the inertial range, and the energy spectrum is proportional to Kolmogorov’s $`5/3`$ powerlaw. After that the renormalized Green’s function, or renormalized $`\nu `$ is computed iteratively.

The frequency dependence of the correlation function are taken as: $`C^{uu}(k,\omega )=2C^{uu}(k)\mathrm{}(G^{uu}(k,\omega ))`$ and $`C^{bb}(k,\omega )=2C^{bb}(k)\mathrm{}(G^{bb}(k,\omega ))`$. In other words, the relaxation time-scale of correlation function is assumed to be the same as that of corresponding Green’s function. Since we are interested in large time-scale behaviour of turbulence, we take the limit $`\omega `$ going to zero. Under these assumptions, the above equations become

$`\delta \nu _{(0)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐩+𝐪=𝐤}^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}[S(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{C^{uu}(q)}{\nu _{(0)}(p)p^2+\nu _{(0)}(q)q^2}}`$ (43)
$`S_6(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{C^{bb}(q)}{\eta _{(0)}(p)p^2+\eta _{(0)}(q)q^2}}]`$
$`\delta \eta _{(0)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐩+𝐪=𝐤}^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}[S_9(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{C^{bb}(q)}{\nu _{(0)}(p)p^2+\eta _{(0)}(q)q^2}}`$ (45)
$`+S_9(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{C^{uu}(q)}{\eta _{(0)}(p)p^2+\nu _{(0)}(q)q^2}}]`$
Note that $`\nu (k)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}(k)/k^2`$ and $`\eta (k)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}(k)/k^2`$.

There are some important points to remember in the above step. The frequency integral in the above is done using contour integral. It can be shown that the integrals are nonzero only when both the components appearing the denominator are of the same sign. For example, first term of Eq. (45) is nonzero only when both $`\nu _{(0)}(p)`$ and $`\eta _{(0)}(q)`$ are of the same sign.

Let us denote $`\nu _{(1)}(k)`$ and $`\eta _{(1)}(k)`$ as the renormalized viscosity and resistivity respectively after the first step of wavenumber elimination. Hence,

$`\nu _{(1)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{(0)}(k)+\delta \nu _{(0)}(k);`$ (46)
$`\eta _{(1)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{(0)}(k)+\delta \eta _{(0)}(k)`$ (47)
5. We keep eliminating the shells one after the other by the above procedure. After $`n+1`$ iterations we obtain

$`\nu _{(n+1)}(k)=\nu _{(n)}(k)+\delta \nu _{(n)}(k)`$ (48)
$`\eta _{(n+1)}(k)=\eta _{(n)}(k)+\delta \eta _{(n)}(k)`$ (49)
where the equations for $`\delta \nu _{(n)}(k)`$ and $`\delta \eta _{(n)}(k)`$ are the same as the Eqs. (43, 45) except that $`\nu _{(0)}(k)`$ and $`\eta _{(0)}(k)`$ appearing in the equations are to be replaced by $`\nu _{(n)}(k)`$ and $`\eta _{(n)}(k)`$ respectively. Clearly $`\nu _{(n+1)}(k)`$ and $`\eta _{(n+1)}`$(k) are the renormalized viscosity and resistivity after the elimination of the $`(n+1)`$th shell.
6. We need to compute $`\delta \nu _{(n)}`$ and $`\delta \eta _{(n)}`$ for various $`n`$. These computations, however, require $`\nu _{(n)}`$ and $`\eta _{(n)}`$. In our scheme we solve these equations iteratively. In Eqs. (43, 45) we substitute $`C(k)`$ by one dimensional energy spectrum $`E(k)`$

$`C^{uu}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^d}{S_d(d1)}}k^{(d1)}E^u(k)`$ (50)
$`C^{bb}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^d}{S_d(d1)}}k^{(d1)}E^b(k)`$ (51)
where $`S_d`$ is the surface area of $`d`$ dimensional spheres. We assume that $`E^u(k)`$ and $`E^b(k)`$ follow Eqs. (4, 5) respectively. Regarding $`\nu _{(n)}`$ and $`\eta _{(n)}`$, we attempt the following form of solution

$`\nu _{(n)}(k_nk^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(K^u)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{1/3}k_n^{4/3}\nu _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ (52)
$`\eta _{(n)}(k_nk^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(K^u)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{1/3}k_n^{4/3}\eta _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ (53)
with $`k=k_{n+1}k^{}(k^{}<1)`$. We expect $`\nu _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ and $`\eta _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ to be universal functions for large $`n`$. The substitution of $`C^{uu}(k),C^{bb}(k),\nu _{(n)}(k)`$, and $`\eta _{(n)}(k)`$ yields the following equations:

$`\delta \nu _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)}}{\displaystyle _{𝐩^{}+𝐪^{}=𝐤^{}}}d𝐪^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(d1)S_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^u(q^{})}{q^{d1}}}\times `$ (55)
$`\left[S(k^{},p^{},q^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _{(n)}^{}(hp^{})p^2+\nu _{(n)}^{}(hq^{})q^2}}S_6(k^{},p^{},q^{}){\displaystyle \frac{r_A^1}{\eta _{(n)}^{}(hp^{})p^2+\eta _{(n)}^{}(hq^{})q^2}}\right]`$
$`\delta \eta _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)}}{\displaystyle _{𝐩^{}+𝐪^{}=𝐤^{}}}d𝐪^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(d1)S_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^u(q^{})}{q^{d1}}}\times `$ (57)
$`\left[S_8(k^{},p^{},q^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _{(n)}^{}(hp^{})p^2+\eta _{(n)}^{}(hq^{})q^2}}+S_9(k^{},p^{},q^{}){\displaystyle \frac{r_A^1}{\eta _{(n)}^{}(hp^{})p^2+\nu _{(n)}^{}(hq^{})q^2}}\right]`$
$`\nu _{(n+1)}^{}(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`h^{4/3}\nu _{(n)}^{}(hk^{})+h^{4/3}\delta \nu _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ (58)
$`\eta _{(n+1)}^{}(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`h^{4/3}\eta _{(n)}^{}(hk^{})+h^{4/3}\delta \eta _{(n)}^{}(hk^{})`$ (59)
where the integrals in the above equations are performed iteratively over a region $`1p^{},q^{}1/h`$ with the constraint that $`𝐩^{}+𝐪^{}=𝐤^{}`$. Fournier and Frisch  showed the above volume integral in $`d`$ dimension to be

$$_{𝐩^{}+𝐪^{}=𝐤^{}}𝑑𝐪^{}=S_{d1}𝑑p𝑑q\left(\frac{pq}{k}\right)^{d2}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^{d3}$$
(60)
where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$.
7. Now we solve the above four equations self consistently for various $`r_A`$s. We have taken $`h=0.7`$. We start with constant values of $`\nu _{(0)}^{}`$ and $`\eta _{(0)}^{}`$ and compute the integrals using Gauss quadrature technique. Once $`\delta \nu _{(0)}^{}`$ and $`\delta \eta _{(0)}^{}`$ have been computed, we can calculate $`\nu _{(1)}^{}`$ and $`\eta _{(1)}^{}`$. We iterate this process till $`\nu _{(m+1)}^{}(k^{})\nu _{(m)}^{}(k^{})`$ and $`\eta _{(m+1)}^{}(k^{})\eta _{(m)}^{}(k^{})`$, that is, till they converge. We have reported the limiting $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ whenever the solution converges. The criterion for convergence is that the error must be less than 1%. This criterion is usually achieved by $`n=10`$ or so. The result of our RG analysis is given below.

We have carried out the RG analysis for various space dimensions and find that the solution converges for all $`d>d_c2.2`$. Hence, the RG fixed-point for MHD turbulence is stable for $`dd_c`$. For illustration of convergent solution, see Fig. 1 for the plots of $`\nu _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ and $`\eta _{(n)}^{}(k^{})`$ for $`d=3,r_A=1`$. The RG fixed point for $`d<d_c`$ is unstable. Refer to the plots of Fig. 2 for $`d=2,r_A=1`$ as an example of an unstable solution. From this observation we can claim that Kolmogorov’s powerlaw is a consistent solution of MHD RG equations at least for $`dd_c`$. The values of asymptotic ($`k^{}0`$ limit) $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ for various $`d`$ and $`r_A=1`$ are displayed in Table I. Clearly $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ decreases with the increase in $`d`$ for $`d4`$. The plot of Fig. (3) shows that both $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are proportional to $`d^{1/2}`$. In the same plot we have also displayed $`\nu ^{}`$ for pure fluid turbulence; there too $`\nu ^{}d^{1/2}`$. This result is consistent with Fournier et al.’s prediction for fluid turbulence .

An important point to note is that the stability of RG fixed point in a given space dimension depends on Alfvén ratio and normalized cross helicity. For example, for $`d=2.2`$ the RG fixed point is stable for $`r_A1`$, but unstable for $`r_A<1`$. A detailed study of stability of the RG fixed point is required to ascertain the boundary of stability.

The values of renormalized parameters for $`d=3`$ and various $`r_A`$ are shown in Table II. For large $`r_A`$ (fluid dominated regime), $`\nu ^{}`$ is close to renormalized viscosity of fluid turbulence ($`r_A=\mathrm{}`$), but $`\eta ^{}`$ is also finite. That means there is a positive magnetic energy flux even when $`r_A\mathrm{}`$. As $`r_A`$ is decreased, $`\eta ^{}`$ decreases but $`\nu ^{}`$ increases, or the Prandtl number $`Pr=\nu /\eta `$ increases. This trend is seen till $`r_A0.25`$ where the RG fixed point with nonzero $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ becomes unstable, and the trivial RG fixed point with $`\nu ^{}=\eta ^{}=0`$ becomes stable. This result suggests an absence of turbulence for $`r_A`$ below 0.25 (approximately). Note that in the $`r_A0`$ (fully magnetic) limit, the MHD equations become linear, hence there is no turbulence. Surprisingly, our RG calculation suggests that turbulence disappear near $`r_A=0.25`$ itself.

The final $`\nu ^{}(k^{})`$ and $`\eta ^{}(k^{})`$ are constant for small $`k^{}`$ but shifts towards zero for larger $`k^{}`$ (see Fig. 1). Similar behaviour has been seen by McComb and coworkers  for fluid turbulence; this behaviour is attributed to the neglect of triple nonlinearity, and the corrective procedure has been prescribed by Zhou and Vahala . For simplicity we have not included the effects of triple nonlinearity in our calculation.

Kraichnan’s $`k^{3/2}`$ energy spectrum \[see Eq. (1)\] and $`\sigma ^{uu}=\sigma ^{bb}kB_0`$ do not satisfy the RG equations. This implies that Kraichnan’s 3/2 powerlaw is not a consistent solution of RG equations.

Pouquet  and Ishizawa and Hattori  calculated the contributions to the renormalized (eddy) viscosity and resistivity from each of the four nonlinear terms of MHD equations using EDQNM (Eddy-Damped-Quasi-Normal-Markovian) approximation. This calculation has been done for $`d=2`$. Let us denote the quantities $`\nu ^{uu}`$, $`\nu ^{ub}`$, $`\eta ^{bu}`$, $`\eta ^{bb}`$ as contributions from the terms $`𝐮𝐮`$, $`𝐛𝐛`$, $`𝐮𝐛`$, $`𝐛𝐮`$ respectively. Note that various cascade rates of MHD turbulence  can be inferred from these parameters. The cascade rate from inside of the $`X`$ sphere ($`X<`$) to outside of the $`Y`$ sphere ($`Y>`$) is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y>}^{X<}=_0^{k_N}2\nu ^{XY}(k)k^2E^X(k)𝑑k$$
(61)
where $`X,Y`$ denote $`u`$ or $`b`$. We have computed $`\nu ^{XY}`$ for $`dd_c`$; their values are listed in Tables I and II. Our results show that $`\eta ^{bb}`$ is positive. Pouquet argues that $`\eta ^{bb}`$ is negative, while Ishizawa finds it to be positive. Since our RG procedure is applicable only for $`d>d_c=2.2`$, it is not proper to compare our results with those of Pouquet  and Ishizawa and Hattori . However, we can claim that the magnetic energy cascade rate ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}`$) is positive for all $`d>d_c`$ because $`\eta ^{bb}>0`$.

The eddy viscosity and resistivity listed in Table I shows that $`\eta ^{bb}`$ and $`\nu ^{ub}`$ decrease as $`d`$ increases. On the contrary, $`\eta ^{bu}`$ and $`\nu ^{uu}`$ first increases till around $`d=5`$ then decreases as $`d`$ increases. Since MHD fluxes are proportional to these parameters, the corresponding fluxes decrease as $`d`$ is increased beyond 5. Near $`d=2`$, $`\nu ^{uu}`$ is negative, reminiscent of inverse cascade energy in two-dimensional fluid turbulence in the $`5/3`$ region. Also, $`\eta ^{bu}`$ is negative near $`d=2`$, i.e., there is a negative energy cascade from $`b`$-sphere to outside $`u`$-sphere The above results are consistent with the recent simulation results of Dar et al.  on two-dimensional MHD turbulence.

The variation of $`\nu ^{XY}`$ with $`r_A`$ for $`d=3`$ is displayed in Tables II. For large $`r_A`$, $`\nu ^{uu}`$ is close to the fluid turbulence $`\nu ^{}`$. However, $`\eta ^{bb}`$ also finite. Hence there is a significant magnetic energy cascade from $`b`$-sphere to outside $`b`$-sphere even in fluid dominated case. As $`r_A`$ is decreased, $`\nu ^{ub}`$ and $`\eta ^{bu}`$ increase, hence cascade rates from $`u`$-sphere to outside $`b`$-sphere, and $`b`$-sphere to outside $`u`$-sphere start becoming important. Incidently, both $`\nu ^{uu}`$ and $`\eta ^{bb}`$ decrease as $`r_A`$ decreases.

In this section we have calculated the renormalized viscosity and resistivity for $`\sigma _c=0`$. In the next section we will calculate these parameters for the $`\sigma _c1`$ limit.

## III RG Calculation: $`\sigma _c1`$

The u and b correlation is very high when $`\sigma _c1`$. For this case it is best to work with Elsässer variables $`𝐳^\pm =𝐮\pm 𝐛`$. In terms of Elsässer variables, $`|z^+|^2z^{}|^2`$. These types of fluctuations have been observed in the solar wind near the Sun. However, by the time the solar wind approaches Earth, the normalized cross helicity is close to zero.

In this section we will briefly discuss the RG treatment for the above case. For the following discussion we will denote $`|z^{}|^2/|z^+|^2=r=(1\sigma _c)/(1+\sigma _c)`$. Clearly $`r1`$.

MHD equations in terms of Elsässer variables are

$$\left(i\omega +\nu _{(0)\pm \pm }k^2\right)z_i^\pm (\widehat{k})+\nu _{(0)\pm }k^2z_i^{}(\widehat{k})=iM_{ijm}(𝐤)𝑑\widehat{p}[z_j^{}(\widehat{p})z_m^\pm (\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]$$
(62)
where

$$M_{ijm}(𝐤)=k_jP_{im}(𝐤)$$
(63)
Note that the above equations contain four dissipative coefficients $`\nu _{\pm \pm }`$ and $`\nu _\pm `$ instead of usual two constants $`\nu _\pm =(\nu \pm \eta )/2`$. This is because $`+`$ symmetry is broken in this case, consequently RG generates the other two constants. We carry out the same procedure as outlined in the previous section. After $`n+1`$ steps of the RG calculation, the above equations become

$`\left[i\omega \left(\nu _{(n)\pm \pm }(k)+\delta \nu _{(n)\pm \pm }(k)\right)k^2\right]z_i^{\pm <}(\widehat{k})`$ (64)
$`+\left(\nu _{(n)\pm }(k)+\delta \nu _{(n)\pm }(k)\right)k^2z_i^<(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`iM_{ijm}(𝐤){\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{p}z_j^<(\widehat{p})z_m^{\pm <}(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})}`$ (65)
with

$`\delta \nu _{(n)++}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}d\widehat{p}[S_1(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{++}(\widehat{p})C^{}(\widehat{q})+S_2(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})C^{}(\widehat{q})`$ (67)
$`+S_3(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})C^+(\widehat{q})+S_4(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{}(\widehat{p})C^+(\widehat{q})]`$
$`\delta \nu _{(n)+}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}d\widehat{p}[S_1(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})C^+(\widehat{q})+S_2(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{++}(\widehat{p})C^+(\widehat{q})`$ (69)
$`+S_3(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{}(\widehat{p})C^{++}(\widehat{q})+S_4(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})C^{++}(\widehat{q})]`$
where the integral is performed over the $`(n+1)`$th shell $`(k_{n+1},k_n)`$. The equations for the other two $`\delta \nu `$s can be obtained by interchanging $`+`$ and $``$ signs. Now we assume that the Alfvén ratio is one, i.e., $`C^+=E^uE^b=0`$. Under this condition, the above equations reduce to

$`\delta \nu _{(n)++}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\widehat{p}[S_1(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{++}(\widehat{p})+S_2(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})]C^{}(\widehat{q})`$ (70)
$`\delta \nu _{(n)+}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\widehat{p}[S_3(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{}(\widehat{p})+S_4(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})]C^{++}(\widehat{q})`$ (71)
$`\delta \nu _{(n)+}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\widehat{p}[S_3(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{++}(\widehat{p})+S_4(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})]C^{}(\widehat{q})`$ (72)
$`\delta \nu _{(n)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{p}+\widehat{q}=\widehat{k}}^\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\widehat{p}[S_1(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{}(\widehat{p})+S_2(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(\widehat{p})]C^{++}(\widehat{q})`$ (73)
The inspection of Eqs. (7073) reveal that $`\nu _{++}`$ and $`\nu _+`$ are of the order of $`r`$. Hence, we take the $`\widehat{\nu }`$ matrix to be of the form

$$\widehat{\nu }(k,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r\zeta & \alpha \\ r\psi & \beta \end{array}\right)$$
(74)
It is convenient to transform the frequency integrals in Eqs. \[(70-73)\] into temporal integrals, which leads

$`\delta \nu _{(n)++}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐩+𝐪=𝐤}^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}[S_1(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^{++}(𝐩,tt^{})+S_2(k,p,q)G_{(n)}^+(𝐩,tt^{})]`$ (76)
$`C^{}(𝐪,tt^{})`$
and similar forms for equations for other $`\nu `$s. Green’s function $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})=\mathrm{exp}[\widehat{\nu }k^2(tt^{})]`$ can be easily evaluated by diagonalizing the matrix $`\widehat{\nu }`$. The final form of $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})`$ to leading order in $`r`$ is

$$\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{r\alpha \psi }{\beta ^2}(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})& \left\{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }+\frac{r\alpha }{\beta }\left(\frac{\zeta }{\beta }\frac{2\alpha \psi }{\beta ^2}\right)\right\}(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})\\ \frac{r\psi }{\beta }(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})& e^{\beta (tt^{})}+\frac{r\alpha \psi }{\beta ^2}(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})\end{array}\right)$$
(77)
The correlation matrix $`\widehat{C}(k,tt^{})`$ is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{++}(k,tt^{})& C^+(k,tt^{})\\ C^+(k,tt^{})& C^{}(k,tt^{})\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{++}(k)& C^+(k)\\ C^+(k)& C^{}(k)\end{array}\right)`$ (82)
The substitution of correlation functions and Green’s functions yield the following expressions for the elements of $`\delta \widehat{\nu }`$

$`\delta \zeta _{(n)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}C^+(q)\{S_1(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}`$ (85)
$`+S_2(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(n)}(p)}{\beta _{(n)}(p)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2+\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}\right)`$
$`S_3(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(n)}(q)}{\beta _{(n)}(q)}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2+\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2}})\}`$
$`\delta \alpha _{(n)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}S_3(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{C^+(q)}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2}}`$ (86)
$`\delta \psi _{(n)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}C^+(q)\{S_3(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}`$ (89)
$`+S_2(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(n)}(q)}{\beta _{(n)}(q)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2+\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2}}\right)`$
$`+S_4(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{(n)}(p)}{\beta _{(n)}(p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _{(n)}(q)q^2}}\}`$
$`\delta \beta _{(n)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)k^2}}{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}S_1(k,p,q){\displaystyle \frac{C^+(q)}{\beta _{(n)}(p)p^2}}`$ (90)
Note that $`\delta \alpha `$, $`\delta \beta `$, $`\delta \zeta `$, $`\delta \psi `$, and hence $`\alpha ,\beta ,\zeta ,\psi `$, are all independent of $`r`$. To solve the above equations we substitute the following one-dimensional energy spectra in the above equations:

$`E^+(k)`$ $`=`$ $`K^+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^+\right)^{4/3}}{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\right)^{2/3}}}k^{5/3}`$ (91)
$`E^{}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`rE^+(k),`$ (92)
For the elements of $`\widehat{\nu }`$ we substitute

$$Z_{(n)}(k)=Z_{(n)}^{}\sqrt{K^+}\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^+\right)^{2/3}}{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\right)^{1/3}}k^{4/3}$$
(93)
where $`Z`$ stands for $`\zeta ,\alpha ,\psi ,\beta `$. The renormalized $`Z^{}`$s are calculated using the procedure outlined in the previous section. For large $`n`$ their values for $`d=3`$ are

$$\widehat{Z^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0.86r& 0.14\\ 0.16r& 0.84\end{array}\right),$$
(94)
and for $`d=2`$ they are

$$\widehat{Z^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0.95r& 0.54\\ 1.10r& 0.54\end{array}\right)$$
(95)
Note that the solution converges for both $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$.

As discussed in the earlier section, the cascade rates $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ can be calculated from the renormalized parameters discussed above. Using the energy equations we can easily derive the equations for the cascade rates, which are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{k_N}}2r\zeta k^2E^+(k)+{\displaystyle _0^{k_N}}2\alpha k^2(E^u(k)E^b(k))`$ (96)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{k_N}}2\beta k^2E^{}(k)+{\displaystyle _0^{k_N}}2r\psi k^2(E^u(k)E^b(k))`$ (97)
Under the assumption that $`r_A=1`$, the parts of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ proportional to $`(E^u(k)E^b(k))`$ vanish. Hence, the total cascade rate will be

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }^++\mathrm{\Pi }^{})`$ (98)
$`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle _0^{k_N}}(\zeta +\beta )k^2E^+(k)`$ (99)
Since $`\zeta `$ and $`\beta `$ are independent of $`r`$, the total cascade rate is proportional to $`r`$ (for $`r`$ small). Clearly the cascade rate $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ vanishes when $`r=0`$ or $`\sigma _c=1`$. This result is consistent with the fact that the nonlinear interactions are absent when only pure Alfvén waves ($`z^+`$ or $`z^{}`$) are present. The detailed calculation of the cascade rates $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ and the constants $`K^\pm `$ is left for future studies (paper II).

## IV Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have constructed a self-consistent RG scheme for MHD turbulence and computed the renormalized viscosity and resistivity. These quantities find applications in simulations specially large-eddy-simulations (LES). In our RG scheme we assume that we are in the fully nonlinear range, and the renormalized energy spectrum is substituted for the correlation function. After the substitution of the correlation function, the renormalized Greens function or renormalized viscosity and resistivity are computed iteratively. In our procedure Kolmogorov’s powerlaw is taken for the energy spectrum, and it is shown to be a self-consistent solution of the RG equation for $`dd_c2.2`$. This result is consistent with the recent theoretical , numerical , and observational studies of solar wind  that favor Kolmogorov’s spectrum for MHD turbulence. Note that we do not carry out vertex (the coefficient of the nonlinear term) renormalization; there is an implicit assumption that the vertex renormalization, if any, is included when we substitute renormalized energy spectrum (Kolmogorov’s) in the RG equation.

For simplicity of the calculation we have taken two special cases: (1) $`\sigma _c=0`$ and full range of $`r_A`$; (2) $`\sigma _c1`$ and $`r_A=1`$. For these two cases, the renormalized viscosity and resistivity have been calculated for various space dimensions. For $`\sigma _c=0`$, there exists a stable RG fixed point for $`dd_c2.2`$. The RG fixed point is unstable for $`d<d_c`$. Our result is consistent with that Liang and Diamond  where they conclude that the RG fixed point for $`d=2`$ is unstable. Note however that the stability depends on the value of $`r_A`$ and $`\sigma _c`$. An exhaustive study is required to ascertain the boundary of stability as a function of $`d,\sigma _c`$, and $`r_A`$.

Some interesting trends emerge as we vary space dimensionality. For $`r_A=1`$, the parameters $`\nu ^{ub}`$ and $`\eta ^{bb}`$ decrease with the increase of $`d`$, but $`\nu ^{uu}`$ and $`\eta ^{bu}`$ first increase till $`d5`$ then decrease.

For $`d=3`$, variation of $`r_A`$ shows some interesting features. For large $`r_A`$, $`\nu ^{}`$ is close to the $`\nu ^{}`$ for pure fluid turbulence, but $`\eta ^{}`$ is also finite for this case. As $`r_A`$ is decreased, $`\nu ^{}`$ increases and $`\eta ^{}`$ decreases, or $`Pr=\nu /\eta `$ increases. Another important result of our calculation is absence of turbulence for all $`r_A`$ below 0.25 or so. In the $`r_A0`$ (fully magnetic) limit, the MHD equations become linear, hence there is no turbulence. It is however surprising that turbulence disappears near $`r_A=0.25`$ itself.

Our RG calculation for fluid turbulence ($`r_A=\mathrm{}`$) show several interesting features. The RG fixed point is stable for $`d=2`$, and the renormalized viscosity is approximately $`0.5`$, a negative number. This is consistent with the inverse cascade of energy for the $`5/3`$ region. Note however that for $`d=3`$, the renormalized fluid viscosity is positive (0.38), hence the energy cascade is forward, consistent with Kolmogorov’s hypothesis.

The values of the renormalized viscosity and resistivity calculated by our calculation differs from that of Verma and Bhattacharjee , the later calculation being similar to Kraichnan’s Direct-Interaction-Approximation calculation for fluid turbulence. Verma and Bhattacharjee  assumed $`\nu ^{++}=\nu ^+`$ and $`\nu ^+=\nu ^{}`$, which is correct only in a limited region of parameter space. In addition, they assumed a cutoff for the self-energy calculation to cure infrared divergence. In the present calculation we have overcome both these defects, and expect that the numbers reported here will match with the future simulation results. It is unfortunate that the RG scheme fails for $`d=2`$, hence, several numerical results of 2D-MHD turbulence  could not be compared with the analytic results presented here.

Kraichnan’s $`3/2`$ energy spectrum and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}(kB_0)`$ do not satisfy renormalization group equations \[Eqs. (43\- 47)\]. Hence $`E(k)k^{3/2}`$ is not a consistent solution of RG equations. This result is in agreement with the recent calculation by Verma , where it was shown that $`B_0=constant`$ does not satisfy RG equations, but the renormalized mean magnetic field ($`B_0k^{1/3}`$) and Kolmogorov’s energy spectrum ($`k^{5/3}`$) do satisfy the RG equations. From these arguments we can claim that Kraichnan’s $`3/2`$ powerlaw is ruled out for strong MHD turbulence. However, $`k^{3/2}`$ may still be considered in the framework of weak turbulence theory.

In our calculation we take $`r_A(k)=E^u(k)/E^b(k)`$ to be a constant. The global Alfvén ratio $`E^u/E^b`$ may differ significantly from $`r_A(k)`$, still we make the approximation $`r_A(k)=r_A`$ to simplify the calculation. Similarly we have assumed that $`\sigma _c(k)=const=\sigma _c`$. In addition we also assume isotropy which does not hold in the large $`r_A`$ limit. It is hoped that future calculations will be able to relax these assumptions and attempt solutions for more realistic situations.

In many of the earlier RG calculations  it is assumed that the dynamical system under consideration is forced by random noise at all scales. In those calculations, the noise and the vertex (coefficient of the nonlinear term) usually get renormalized along with the renormalization of dissipative coefficients. In contrast, in our scheme only the dissipative constants are renormalized, and the renormalization correction to other parameters (e.g. noise) are implicitly lumped into the full correlation function by assuming Kolmogorov’s powerlaw. Our procedure is relatively simple, and one can easily calculate various interesting quantities. We hope that future developments in dynamical RG will be able to justify some of the assumptions made in our procedure.

To conclude, we have applied RG procedure to MHD turbulence and calculated the renormalized viscosity and resistivity. These parameters find applications in simulations. We have shown that that Kolmogorov’s spectrum is a consistent solution of MHD RG equation. The results presented here are in general agreement with the recent EDQNM and numerical results. Validation of the results presented here with numerical simulations will give us important insights into physics of MHD turbulence.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks J. K. Bhattacharjee for valuable discussions and insights from the inception to the end of the problem. The author also benefitted greatly from the numerous discussions he had with G. Dar and V. Eswaran on simulation results.

## A  Perturbative Calculation of MHD Equations

The MHD equations (7, 8) can be written as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_i(\widehat{k})\\ b_i(\widehat{k})\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}G^{uu}(\widehat{k})& G^{ub}(\widehat{k})\\ G^{bu}(\widehat{k})& G^{bb}(\widehat{k})\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i}{2}P_{ijm}^+(𝐤)𝑑\widehat{p}[u_j(\widehat{p})u_m(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})b_j(\widehat{p})b_m(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]& \\ iP_{ijm}^{}(𝐤)𝑑\widehat{p}[u_j(\widehat{p})b_m(\widehat{k}\widehat{p})]& \end{array}\right)`$ (A7)
where the Greens function $`G`$ can be obtained from $`G^1(\widehat{k})`$

$$G^1(k,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}& \mathrm{\Sigma }^{ub}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bu}& i\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}\end{array}\right).$$
(A8)
We solve the above equation perturbatively keeping the terms to the first order (nonvanishing). As usual, we represent the integrals by Feynmann diagrams. To the leading order, the quantities $`u_i`$ and $`b_i`$ are expanded as

$$\text{}=\text{}\text{}+\text{}+\mathrm{}$$
(A9)
$$\text{}=\text{}\text{}+\text{}+\mathrm{}$$
(A10)
The variables $`u`$ and $`b`$ are represented by solid and dashed line respectively. The quantity $`G^{uu},G^{ub},G^{bb},G^{bu}`$ are represented by thick wiggly (photon), thin wiggly, thick curly (gluon), and thin curly lines respectively. The filled circle represents $`(i/2)P_{ijm}^+`$ vertex, while the empty circle represents $`iP_{ijm}^{}`$ vertex.

The substitution of $`u_i^>`$ and $`b_i^>`$ in the second bracketed terms of Eqs. (18, 21), denoted by $`I_2^u`$ and $`I_2^b`$ respectively, will yield

$`I_2^u`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}\text{}`$ (A11)
$`I_2^b`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}`$ (A12)
We illustrate the expansion of one of the above diagrams:

$`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$ (A17)
$`\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}+`$
$`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+`$
$`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$
$`+\text{higer oder diagrams}`$
In the above diagrams solid lines denote $`C^{uu}`$, and the dotted lines denote $`C^{ub}`$. The correlation function $`C^{bb}`$ is denoted by dashed line. As mentioned earlier, the wiggly and curly lines denote various Green’s functions. All the diagrams except 4,8,12, and 16th can be shown to be trivially zero using Eqs. (2228). We assume that 4,8,12, and 16th diagrams are also zero, as usually done in turbulence RG calculations . Similarly we can show that all other diagrams of $`I_2^u`$ and $`I_2^b`$ are zero, hence, $`I_2^u=I_2^b=0`$ to first order.

The third bracketed terms of (18, 21), denoted by $`I_3^u`$ and $`I_3^b`$ respectively, are diagrammatically represented as

$`I_3^u`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}\text{}`$ (A18)
$`=`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}(k)\text{}\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{ub}(k)\text{}`$ (A19)
$`I_3^b`$ $`=`$   (A20)
$`=`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bu}(k)\text{}\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}(k)\text{}`$ (A21)
where

$`(d1)\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}\text{}+\text{}\text{}`$ (A22)
$`(d1)\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{ub}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\text{}`$ (A23)
$`(d1)\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bu}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\text{}`$ (A24)
$`(d1)\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\text{}`$ (A25)
In Eqs. (A10–A13) we have omitted all the vanishing diagrams (similar to those appearing in $`I_2`$). Looking at the all the terms, we observe $`I_3^u`$ contributes to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{uu}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ub}`$ renormalization, while $`I_3^b`$ contributes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{bb}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{bu}`$ renormalization. The algebraic expressions for the above diagrams are given by Eqs. (3339).

## B Values of $`S_i`$

$`S_i(k,p,q)`$ are formed by contracting tensors $`P_{ijm}^+,P_{ijm}^{},P_{ij}`$ and $`M_{ijm}`$ (see Eqs. (11,13,63)). On simplification $`S_i`$s become functions of $`k,p,q`$ and cosines $`x,y,z`$ defined as

$$𝐩𝐪=pqx;𝐪𝐤=qky;𝐩𝐤=pkz.$$
(B1)
The algebraic expressions for various $`S_i(k,p,q)`$ are given below.

$`S_1(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`M_{bjm}(k)M_{mab}(p)P_{ja}(q)`$ (B2)
$`=`$ $`kp(d2+z^2)(z+xy)`$ (B3)
$`S_2(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ajm}(k)M_{mab}(p)P_{jb}(q)`$ (B4)
$`=`$ $`kp(z+z^3+y^2z+xyz^2)`$ (B5)
$`S_3(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`M_{bjm}(k)M_{jab}(p)P_{ma}(q)`$ (B6)
$`=`$ $`kp(z+z^3+x^2z+xyz^2)`$ (B7)
$`S_4(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`M_{ajm}(k)M_{jab}(p)P_{mb}(q)`$ (B8)
$`=`$ $`kp(z+z^3+xy+x^2z+y^2x+xyz^2)`$ (B9)
$`S(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{bjm}^+(k)P_{mab}^+(p)P_{ja}(q)`$ (B10)
$`=`$ $`kp\left((d3)z+2z^3+(d1)xy\right)`$ (B11)
$`S_5(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{bjm}^+(k)P_{mab}^{}(p)P_{ja}(q)`$ (B12)
$`=`$ $`kp\left((d1)z+(d3)xy2y^2z\right)`$ (B13)
$`S_6(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ajm}^+(k)P_{mba}^{}(p)P_{jb}(q)`$ (B14)
$`=`$ $`S_5(k,p,q)`$ (B15)
$`S_7(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ijm}^{}(k)P_{mab}^+(p)P_{ja}(q)P_{ib}(k)`$ (B16)
$`=`$ $`S_5(p,k,q)`$ (B17)
$`S_8(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ijm}^{}(k)P_{jab}^+(p)P_{ma}(q)P_{ib}(k)`$ (B18)
$`=`$ $`S_5(p,k,q)`$ (B19)
$`S_9(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ijm}^{}(k)P_{mab}^{}(p)P_{ja}(q)P_{ib}(k)`$ (B20)
$`=`$ $`kp(d1)(z+xy)`$ (B21)
$`S_{10}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ijm}^{}(k)P_{mab}^{}(p)P_{jb}(q)P_{ia}(k)`$ (B22)
$`=`$ $`S_9(k,p,q)`$ (B23)
$`S_{11}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ijm}^{}(k)P_{jab}^{}(p)P_{ma}(q)P_{ib}(k)`$ (B24)
$`=`$ $`S_9(k,p,q)`$ (B25)
$`S_{12}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ijm}^{}(k)P_{jab}^{}(p)P_{mb}(q)P_{ia}(k)`$ (B26)
$`=`$ $`S_9(k,p,q)`$ (B27)
There are many useful relationships between $`S_i(k,p,q)`$s. Some of them are

$`S(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`S_1(k,p,q)+S_2(k,p,q)+S_3(k,p,q)+S_4(k,p,q)`$ (B28)
$`S_5(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`S_1(k,p,q)S_2(k,p,q)+S_3(k,p,q)S_4(k,p,q)`$ (B29)
Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Plot of $`\nu ^{}(k^{})`$ (solid) and $`\eta ^{}(k^{})`$ (dashed) vs. $`k^{}`$ for $`d=3`$ and $`\sigma _c=0,r_A=1`$. Values at various iterations are shown by different curves.

Fig. 2. Plot of $`\nu ^{}(k^{})`$ and $`\eta ^{}(k^{})`$ vs. $`k^{}`$ for $`d=2`$ and $`\sigma _c=0,r_A=1`$.

Fig. 3. Plot of asymptotic $`\nu ^{}`$ (square) and $`\eta ^{}`$ (diamond) vs. $`d`$ for $`\sigma _c=0`$ and $`r_A=1`$. The fluid $`\nu ^{}`$ (triangle) is also plotted for reference. The solid lines are the $`d^{1/2}`$ curves.


text:
# Wave-Function renormalization and the Hopf algebra of Connes and Kreimer

## 1  The Connes-Kreimer formalism

As has already been mentioned by A. Connes in his lecture , the standard BPHZ recursion formula for the substraction of ultraviolet divergent graphs can be interpreted as an algebraic analogue of the Birkhoff decomposition of loops with values in a infinite dimensional group associated to Feynman diagrams . Although the proof of the existence of the Birkhoff decomposition for an infinite dimensional group seems to be a rather difficult task, it is fairly easy to obtain, in the case under consideration, if one works at the level of the associated algebra of polynomial functions. Besides, it turns out to hold for the group of characters of general graded Hopf algebras. .

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $``$ be a graded Hopf algebra, $`𝒜`$ an arbitrary commutative algebra which is written as a sum (in the sense of vector spaces) of two commutative sub-algebras $`𝒜_{}`$ and $`𝒜_+`$. Then any character $`\gamma `$ of $``$ with values in $`𝒜`$ can be decomposed as

$$\gamma =\gamma _{}^1\gamma _+,$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _\pm `$ is a character of $``$ with values in $`𝒜_\pm `$. Moreover,the decomposition is unique up to multiplication on the left by a character with values in $`𝒜_{}𝒜_+`$.

This is easily applied to the Hopf algebra $``$ of Feynman diagrams of a given field theory (say $`\varphi ^3`$ in six dimensions). In this case we can choose $`𝒜`$ to be the algebra of formal Laurent series of finite negative order, $`𝒜_+`$ to be the subalgebra corresponding to positive powers and $`𝒜_{}`$ the subalgebra of power series with exponent of strictly negative degree. Evaluation of the diagrams in dimensional regularization yields a character with values in $`𝒜`$ and its Birkhoff decomposition is nothing but a way to rewrite the splitting between counterterms and renormalized amplitudes in the minimal substraction scheme. Note that the convolution product encodes all the intricacies of the substraction of subdivergences.

In this example, the intersection between the two algebras is empty, so that the decomposition is unique. However, we could as well include the constants in $`𝒜_{}`$, so that the ambiguities of the decomposition are measured by characters of $``$. These characters just associate a number to each Feynman diagram and their inverses are nothing but arbitrary finite counterterms whose effects we want to compensate by suitable finite changes of the parameters of the theory.

Of course, in physically interesting situations we impose normalization conditions to the Green’s functions of the theory and it is a change of the normalization conditions that yields to a finite character. Alternatively, we can use the minimal substraction scheme in dimensional regularization so that we have a unique solution for the Birkhoff decomposition. However, this theory has a hidden parameter, the unit of mass $`\mu `$, and characters for different values of $`\mu `$ still differ by a finite counterterm.

A first step involves the associated change of the coupling constant in the massless $`\varphi ^3`$ theory and has been obtained in . Before we give this result, let us recall that the formal power series in $`g`$ of the type

$$g+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ng^n$$
(2)
form a group $`G_{diff}`$ for the usual composition of power series. We shall denote by $`G_{diff}^o`$ the opposite group and by $`_{diff}`$ the Hopf algebra of polynomial functions on $`G_{diff}^o`$. The latter is generated as an algebra by the functions $`\alpha _n`$ with $`n>1`$, defined on $`G_{diff}`$ by

$$\alpha _n\left(\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kg^k\right)=a_n,$$
(3)
and its Hopf algebra structure is derived from the group law of $`G_{diff}`$.

###### Theorem 1.2

Let $`Z_1(g)`$ and $`Z_3(g)`$ be the formal of power series in the coupling constant $`g`$ that correspond to sum of the 1PI diagrams of the 2 and 3 point functions. Then the expansion

$$gZ_1(g)Z_3^{3/2}(g)=g+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z_ng^n$$
(4)
generates a Hopf algebra homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha _n)=z_n`$ from $`_{diff}`$ to $``$.

Using the coproduct of $``$ one can define a right action of $`G`$ on $``$ by

$$f^\gamma =(\gamma id)o\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(5)
for any $`\gamma G`$ and $`f`$. This is an action by algebra homomorphisms and it extends to the algebra of formal power series with coefficients in $``$.

On the other side, the Hopf algebra morphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ induces at the level of characters a group morphism from $`G`$ to $`G_{diff}`$. Since any element of $`G_{diff}`$ acts on formal power series by composition, we have another action of $`G`$ on formal power series with coefficients in $``$. The combination of the two actions leave the coupling constant invariant in the following sense.

###### Corollary 1.1

Let $`\gamma G`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma `$ the associated formal diffeomorphism. Then

$$\left(\psi _\gamma (g)^1Z_g(\psi _\gamma (g)^1)\right)^\gamma =gZ_g(g).$$
(6)
When evaluated on the character $`\gamma _+`$, this is just the statement that the renormalized theory is invariant provided the effect of the finite counterterm $`\gamma `$ has been compensated by trading the old coupling constant $`g`$ for the new one $`\psi _\gamma (g)`$.

To complete the picture of reparametrization invariance, we have to study the effect of the combined change of counterterm and coupling constant on the Green’s functions. This will be achieved by extending the previous morphism to take into account finite wave function renormalization.

## 2 Wave-function renormalization

Suppose that we consider two renormalization schemes $``$ and $`^{}`$ and denote by primed indices the renormalization factors associated to the scheme $`^{}`$. By this we simply mean that we have two ways to compute the renormalized Feynman diagrams that differ only by finite values. Then the new coupling constant $`g^{}`$ is determined as a function of the old one by requiring that the bare coupling constants are the same for both schemes

$$g_0^{}(g^{}(g))=g_0(g)$$
(7)
which yields directly to the definition of the previous morphism.

As is well known, the Green’s functions are not invariant under this transformation since it involve also a change of the normalization of the field. Accordingly, the $`N`$-point functions in the two renormalization schemes are related by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^{^{}}(p,g^{})=\zeta (g)\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(p,g)$$
(8)
with

$$\zeta (g,^{},)=\frac{Z_3^{^{}}}{Z_3^{}}.$$
(9)
Note that physics of the system (i.e. the S-matrix) is invariant by such a transformation.

We need now to extend $`_{Diff}`$ to take account of the effect of wave-function renormalization, in the spirit of what has been done by Connes and Kreimer.

First let $`G_{pow}`$ be the group (for usual multiplication) of power series of the type $`1+_{n1}c_ng^n`$ with $`c_nC`$.
Define $`\stackrel{~}{G}=G_{diff}G_{pow}`$ with the group law

$$(S,T).(S^{},T^{})=(SoS^{},ToS^{}T^{})S,S^{}G_{diff},T,T^{}G_{pow}.$$
(10)
Let us denote by $`\gamma `$ the character of $``$ associated to the change from $``$ to $`^{^{}}`$. Motivated by the previous considerations on wave function renormalization, we define the following function on $`G`$:

$$\zeta _\gamma (x)=\frac{Z_3^\gamma [\psi _\gamma ^1(x)]}{Z_3(x)}.$$
(11)
It describes wave function renormalization and leads to the following result.

###### Theorem 2.1

The application $`\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1(x),\zeta _\gamma (x))`$ is a group morphism from $`G`$ to $`G_{diff}G_{pow}`$.

Proof:
We prove this in two steps. First we show that the application $`\zeta _\gamma (x)`$ is well defined because it must be a formal power series with scalar coefficients whereas its definition involves $``$ valued coefficients. Then we prove that the group law is satisfied.

By construction we have

$$\psi _\gamma ^1(x)Z_1^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1)(Z_3^{3/2})^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1)=xZ_1(x)Z_3^{3/2}(x).$$
(12)
So by reordering, we get

$$\frac{(Z_3)^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1)}{Z_3(x)}=\left(\frac{\psi _\gamma ^1Z_1\psi _\gamma ^1)}{xZ_1(x)}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(13)
This just asserts that a diagram with 2 external lines has to be equal to a diagram with 3 external lines, the only possibility is that it is a scalar. So $`\zeta _\gamma (x)`$ is well defined.

Moreover, it is invariant under the action of $`G`$, so that

$`\zeta _{\gamma \gamma ^{}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_3^{\gamma \gamma ^{}}[\psi _{\gamma \gamma ^{}}^1(x)]}{Z_3(x)}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Z_3^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1(x)o\psi _\gamma ^{}^1(x))}{Z_3^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^{}^1(x))}}\right]^\gamma ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_3^\gamma ^{}(\psi _\gamma ^{}^1(x))}{Z_3(x)}}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\zeta _\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^{}^1(x))\zeta _\gamma ^{}(x)`$ (16)
which is just the product law. $`\mathrm{}`$

Accordingly, after evaluation of $`Z_1(x)`$ and $`Z_3(x)`$ on a character, we get the transformation law of the 2- and 3-points functions by the following rules:

$`Z_1^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1(x))=\zeta _\gamma ^{3/2}(x)Z_1(x)`$ (17)
$`Z_3^\gamma (\psi _\gamma ^1(x))=\zeta _\gamma (x)Z_3(x).`$ (18)
Note that $`\zeta _\gamma (x)`$ is independent of any regulation procedure: it is a purely diagrammatical object.

## 3 Concluding remarks

We have shown that the renormalization of the wave-function yields also to a morphism from $`G`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{G}=G_{diff}G_{pow}`$ which is purely diagrammatical.

We should also point out that this is a very particular case of a general statement about the reparametrization invariance of the functional integral that is currently under investigation using Hopf algebraic techniques. For instance, the previous morphsim can be obtained through a two variable power series as follows: let us denote by $`Z_{1,2i}`$ (resp. $`Z_{3,2i}`$) the sum of all 1PI diagrams with $`i`$ loops, weighted with their symmetry factor, that contribute to the 3-point function (resp. the 2-point function). Then

$`X(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`x(1+Z_{1,2}x^2y^3+Z_{1,4}x^4y^6+\mathrm{}+Z_{1,2i}x^{2i}y^{3i}+\mathrm{})`$ (19)
$`Y(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`y(1Z_{3,2}x^2y^3Z_{3,4}x^4y^6+\mathrm{}Z_{3,2i}x^{2i}y^{3i}+\mathrm{})^1`$ (20)
defines a morphsim of two variables that preserves the foliation of the first quadrant by the curves $`x^2y^3`$ from which we recover the coupling constant renormalization (change of the curve) and wave function (modification of the coordinate on the curve).


text:
# Simultaneous intraportation of many quantum states within the quantum computing network

## Abstract

A scheme is proposed for simultaneous intraportation of many unknown quantum states within a quantum computing network. It is shown that our scheme, much different from the teleportation in the strict sense, can be very similar to the original teleportation proposal\[Phys.Rev.Lett.70 (1993)1895)\] and the efficiency of the scheme for quantum state transmission is very high. The possible applications of our scheme are also discussed.

Quantum computing is an interesting and hot topic in the quantum theory, which can treat efficiently some nondeterministic polynomial-time problems inaccessible for the existing computer, such as factorization of large numbers, or solve some problems more rapidly, e.g., searching a certain item from a large disordered system, etc. It has been proven that any operation in the quantum computing can be decomposed into a series of two basic operations. One is controlled-NOT(CN) gate, defined as $`|ϵ_1>|ϵ_2>|ϵ_1>|ϵ_1ϵ_2>`$ with $`ϵ_{1,2}=0,1`$, and the other is Hadamard gate $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$, which transforms $`|0>`$ and $`|1>`$ to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>+|1>)`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>|1>)`$, respectively. As Hadamard gate is a rotation on a single qubit, which is easily realized, the physical realization of the CN operation is the key to the achievement of an actual quantum computing. The experimental demonstration of the CN operation on a trapped ultracold $`Be^+`$ showed that the quantum computing can be actually carried out after some technical difficulties, such as the decoherence and ultracold cooling for large quantities of trapped ions, have been overcome.

The teleportation of an unknown quantum state over arbitrary distance is another interesting and hot topic in the quantum theory. It is also a striking demonstration of the nonlocal character of quantum states, which starts at a joint measurement on a particle(labelled as particle $`a`$) in an unknown state and a particle b being one-half of a maximally entangled pair of particles(b and c), and ends at a suitable unitary rotation of particle c to restore the state of particle $`a`$ with the help of two bits of classical message. It has been proven that the teleportation is a special reversible quantum operation, which hides the quantum information within the correlation between the system and the environment. Recently, the scheme has been extended to the teleportation of continued variables, and teleportation with GHZ state. Milburn et al demonstrated theoretically the teleportation via a two-mode squeezed vacuum state in light of the proposal in Ref., and the teleportation was also proposed to construct a variety of quantum gates, associated with other operations. As far as we know, the teleportation has been demonstrated experimentally by using parametric down-conversion in interferometric Bell state analyzers and in k-vector entanglement, NMR method and continuous variables of electromagnetic field.

Since the essence of the teleportation is based on the quantum entanglement which is also the basis of the quantum parallelism in the quantum computing, a scheme for achieving teleportation via quantum computing was proposed recently. In that scheme, three quantum states are put into a circuit consisting of Hadamard operations and CN ones, in which one(input from channel $`a`$) is the unknown quantum state needed to be teleported and the other two are auxiliary ones (input from channels b and c respectively) to be entangled. After the entanglement of the states in channels $`a`$ and b(one-half of the entanglement of b and c), one carries out a series of CN and Hadamard operations on the state in channel c with the help of the quantum information from channels $`a`$ and b. Finally, the quantum state put in the channel $`a`$ reappears at the output of the channel c. Obviously, this scheme is somewhat different from the original scheme proposed by Bennett et al$`[7]`$. First, there is no need of joint measurement with Bell basis states. Although the authors made some discussions for the measurement on the channels $`a`$ and b at the border line of the sender Alice and the receiver Bob, it is easily found that the final result is irrelative to these measurements. Secondly, Bob needs not only a unitary rotation to the quantum state in channel c, but also CN operations to the quantum state with the help of the information from channels $`a`$ and b being control bits. Particularly the CN operation between the channels $`a`$-c and b-c implies that $`a`$ and b are not arbitrarily far away from c. So this scheme is not actually referred to the teleportation, but, in some sense, the intraportation which transmits a state from a channel at the sender to another at the receiver within a network system.

Nevertheless, this scheme is an interesting extension for the original teleportation proposal, which enlightens us to make a more efficient transmission of the unknown states via quantum computing network. In this contribution, we will extend this idea to try to transmit simultaneously many unknown quantum states with the circuit similar to Ref.. It can be found that the pure state, instead of the entangled state required in Ref., can be used as the auxiliary state for the state transmission, and fewer classical messages are needed in our scheme than in Ref.. However, the entanglement is still essential to our scheme. A comparison of our scheme with Ref. will be made to show the advantages of our scheme. The possible applications of our scheme will be discussed in the secure transmission of quantum states as well as the preparation of nonclassical states.

Suppose first that two quantum states $`a|1>+b|0>`$ and $`e|1>+f|0>`$ put respectively in channels 1 and 3 will be intraported, and the other state $`c|1>+d|0>`$ in the channel 2 is auxiliary. (In this work, we set channels 1, 2 and 3 corresponding to the the channels from the top to the bottom.) Alice need not make any measurement at the position of the vertical dotted line denoting the border line of Alice and Bob, but informs Bob by the broadcast or telephone with one bits of message about the values of c and d. If $`c=d=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, Bob will carry out a series of corresponding operations, as shown in Fig.1 where and in the following figures the channels for transmitting the classical message are omitted. Then he will obtain $`a|1>+b|0>`$ and $`e|1>+f|0>`$ at the outputs of the channels 2 and 1 respectively. If $`c=0`$ and $`d=1`$, the operation by Bob is shown in Fig.2, where he obtains $`e|1>+f|0>`$ and $`a|1>+b|0>`$ at the outputs of the channels 1 and 3 respectively. Similarly, if $`c=1`$ and $`d=0`$, the operation by Bob is demonstrated in Fig.3. The later two procedures in fact result in the swapping of quantum states, or identity interchange of quantum states.

The scheme can be generalized to the intraportation of the unknown quantum states input respectively from channels 1 and 2, or channels 2 and 3, where the values of e and f, or values of $`a`$ and b should be informed to Bob. The circuit shown in Fig.4 is an example in these respects. From Figs. 1-3 we know that there are three kinds of possible outputs for a certain kind of input under the present operations. For example, for the input case in Fig.1, the three kinds of possible outputs are $`(e|1>+f|0>)_1`$$`(a|1>+b|0>)_2`$ $`(|1>+|0>)_3`$, $`(|1>+|0>)_1(e|1>+f|0>)_2`$$`(a|1>+b|0>)_3`$, and $`(e|1>+f|0>)_1`$$`(|1>+|0>)_2`$$`(a|1>+b|0>)_3`$. So If the auxiliary state input by Alice is restricted to three cases, that is, $`c=d=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, $`c=0`$ and $`d=1`$, and $`c=1`$ and $`d=0`$, then there are totally nine different cases for each intraportation, which in fact constitute the protocol between Bob and Alice for different operations performed by Bob corresponding to different inputs set by Alice. Obviously, in the protocol, it is important to make clear from which channel the auxiliary state is input, since different situation for input channels of auxiliary states correspond to different operations Bob should perform.

As we know, three CN operation sequences will result in the swapping of two quantum states, i.e., $`CN_{12}CN_{21}CN_{12}`$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>_1|\mathrm{\Phi }>_2=|\mathrm{\Phi }>_1|\mathrm{\Psi }>_2`$. So with different group of these operations, three input quantum states can also reappear at the outputs of different channels via quantum computing, as demonstrated in Fig.5 where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\theta `$ are arbitrary quantum states. But this swapping operation is different from our intraportation scheme. The major difference is that, in our scheme of intraportation, the quantum information is divided into two parts: one is related to the entangled state, and the other is the purely classical information. Moreover, the three input quantum states are fully entangled before they are sent to the receiver in our scheme, instead of the swapping operation depending on the interaction between arbitrary two states of the three input states. However, by means of the swapping operations, we can simplify above protocol for intraportation, that is, Bob only needs to consider one kind of output case for each input case. For example, in Fig.1, Bob chooses the operations to produce $`(e|1>+f|0>)_1`$$`(a|1>+b|0>)_2`$$`(|1>+|0>)_3`$, and the other two kinds of outputs can be obtained via a group of the swapping operations. Therefore, the protocol for the present intraportation scheme can be reduced to including only three different cases, and the other different output cases are resorted to the post-intraportation treatment.

The teleportation of the entangled state is also an interesting topic for the quantum communication. With the original teleportation proposal, it is easily proven that an unknown entangled state can be teleported via a known entangled state as well as two bits of classical message. Our scheme simultaneously transmitting two pure quantum states, in some sense, also means that it can intraport entangled states. As shown in Fig.6, two quantum states $`c|1>+d|0>`$ and $`e|1>+f|0>`$ are entangled, after the Hadamard gate and CN gate, to be $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c+d)(e|01>+f|00>)`$ $`+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(dc)(e|10>+f|11>)`$. With the help of the auxiliary state $`|0>`$ and the corresponding operations by Bob, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reappears at the outputs of channels 1 and 2. In this procedure, the intraportation only needs a pure state to be auxiliary, and one bits of classical message about the auxiliary state from Alice to Bob, which is more efficient than that with the original teleportation proposal. Obviously, before the intraportation, the protocol should be made between Alice and Bob for Bob’s operation corresponding to the different auxiliary state input by Alice.

The present scheme can be readily extended to intraporting simultaneously many unknown quantum states and the intraportation of many-particle entangled states, with the increase of the channels transmitting the quantum states, and a little bit modification of the circuit. For example, for the case of four channels, we can intraport simultaneously at most three unknown quantum states via one bit of classical message after the protocol has been made by Alice and Bob, as shown in Figs.7, 8 and 9 where the auxiliary states were input from the lowest channel. Comparing these figures with Figs.1-4, and by direct deductions for other many-channel situations, we find that, for the case of N channels, no matter from which channel the auxiliary state is input, the operations performed by Alice can be $`H_{N1}CN_{N1N}H_{N2}CN_{N2N1}H_{N3}\mathrm{}CN_{23}CN_{12}H_1`$, and the first five operations by Bob are $`CN_{N1N}H_NCN_{1N}H_1H_N`$. The other operations by Bob should be performed in terms of the specific input situation. These characteristics are useful for the production of the protocol for intraportation. According to above discussion, we know that, even for the many-channel situation, there are still three different cases in the protocol if we use the swapping operations for the post-intraportation treatment.

As the quantum states are fully entangled before they are reconstructed at the output locations, one possible application of our scheme is the secure transmission of the everyday quantum messages within a quantum computing network. Suppose an eavesdropper wants to get messages from the channels between the sender Alice and the distant receiver Bob. The eavesdropper will not succeed even if he eavesdrops the quantum information simultaneously from all channels, and meanwhile receives the classical message send by Alice, as long as he do not know the protocol made by Alice and Bob. As the eavesdropper is not clear from which channel the auxiliary state is input, the probability for his successful eavesdropping decreases as the increase of the number of the channels, and the action of the eavesdropper can be detected by Bob from the comparison of the output results with the expected results given by the protocol. Although it also needs the judgement for whether there exists the eavesdropping, however, different from the standard cryptographic scheme, our scheme does not involve the quantum key distribution process because we have supposed that Alice and Bob are not much far away from each other. The protocol in our scheme can be made by Alice and Bob meeting at a common place. One may ask: why does not Alice send her quantum message to Bob directly when they meet each other? The key point in our scheme is that, once the protocol has been made, Alice can send her quantum messages to Bob efficiently and safely at any time when required. They may meet each other once a month or longer to change their protocol for keeping secure transmission of the quantum information in the next several days. Strictly speaking, our scheme is less practical for two much distant users than the standard quantum cryptography, whereas it might be more convenient and practical for the everyday transmission of the quantum information within a limited quantum computing network in future. Moreover, a by-product of this application is the preparation of different quantum states at the output location. By suitably choosing the operations as well as the coefficients of the input states, some useful quantum states, such as Bell states, Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states and so on, can be obtained from the output states. For example, in Fig.1, if Bob does not perform the last $`CN_{23}`$, but make a measurement at the channel 3, then he will obtain $`ea|11>+fb|00>`$ or $`eb|10>+fa|01>`$ from channels 1 and 2 by projecting the output state of the channel 3 on $`|0>`$ or $`|1>`$.

A shortcoming of our scheme is the increase of the quantum gates with the increase of the number of the channels. In practical application, we may restrict the number of the channels in terms of the quantity of the quantum message to be transmitted. We can also try to integrate some quantum gates, according to the regularity of operations referred to above, to reduce the number of the operation.

In summary, we pointed out that a former teleportation scheme via quantum computing network is actually an intraportation within a quantum computing network, and along this idea, we studied how to intraport simultaneously many unknown quantum states. As the classical message from Alice to Bob is necessary in the scheme, our scheme is more in tune with the original teleportation proposal than Ref.. Moreover our scheme is also more efficient than the transmission of unknown quantum states with the original teleportation proposal. Different from Ref., however, the present scheme do not obviously depend on the entanglement characteristic of the auxiliary state itself since the pure state can also act as the auxiliary state, whereas the entanglement is still the heart of our scheme. So from this viewpoint, the present scheme does not follow closely the original teleportation proposal. On the other hand, for more coincidence with the original teleportation proposal, we can use two auxiliary states for the many-channel cases. For example, in Fig.7, we can set $`e=0`$ and $`f=1`$, thus the Hadamard gate and the following CN operation make the two auxiliary states entangled. Then one part of the entanglement is correlated with the two unknown quantum states, and the other one is sent directly to Bob. As a result, Bob can reproduce in his side the two unknown quantum states by two bits of classical messages sent from Alice and some corresponding operations performed according to the protocol he made with Alice. Obviously, with this change, our scheme is well consistent with the proposal in Ref., whereas our scheme is still more efficient as many unknown quantum states(e.g. two unknown quantum states in Fig.7) are transmitted simultaneously by means of two bits of classical message. From above analysis, we know that, the realization of the present scheme at least requires two prerequisites. One is the quantum channels between Alice and Bob, whereas with what material to construct these quantum channels is still an open question. The other is the experimental achievement of the quantum computing with many-qubit. As the seven-qubit quantum computing has been carried out via NMR, and many-qubit quantum computing via trapped ions will be achieved in the near future, we believe that our scheme will be helpful for the exploration of efficient transmission of quantum information in future actual quantum computing network.

The valuable discussion with Prof. Xiwen Zhu and Kelin Gao is highly acknowledged. The author also thanks Dr.Yurong Jiang for critically checking the deduction in this work.

Note added: After finishing this work, the author was told that a work extending Ref. along another direction had been carried out in the field of condensed matter physics.

Captions of the figures

Fig.1 Intraportation of two quantum states, where the auxiliary state is $`|0>+|1>`$ and input from the middle channel.

Fig.2 The same as Fig.1, but the auxiliary state is $`|0>`$.

Fig.3 The same as Fig.1, but the auxiliary state is $`|1>`$.

Fig.4 The same as Fig.1, but the auxiliary state $`|0>`$ is input from the lowest channel.

Fig.5 Quantum swapping of three quantum states.

Fig.6 Intraportation of an entangled state.

Fig.7 Intraportation of three quantum states, where the auxiliary state is $`|0>+|1>`$ and input from the lowest channel.

Fig.8 The same as Fig.7, but the auxiliary state is $`|0>`$.

Fig.9 The same as Fig.7, but the auxiliary state is $`|1>`$.