text:
# A representative sample of Be stars III: 𝐻 band spectroscopy

## 1 Introduction

Be stars are defined as hot, non-supergiant stars that show, or have shown at some stage, emission lines in their spectrum. About 20% of B stars are Be stars hence they are an important part of the hot star population. Understanding them is crucial to our obtaining a complete picture of hot-star winds. They are rapid rotators (rotating at a mean velocity of 70% of their break-up speeds, Porter 1996) and often have complex and variable emission line profiles that at sufficient resolution are double peaked. In addition they show an optical and infrared continuum excess. In spite of many attempts, no complete explanation for the Be phenomenon has yet been found.

Observations have produced an empirical description of Be star circumstellar environments which is now generally accepted: a dense “disc” exists in the equatorial plane (probably rotating in a Keplerian fashion), whilst over the polar regions there is a fast wind (velocities up to $`10002000`$km s-1). The disc is ionized, and it is recombination in the disc that gives the emission lines. The double peaked structure of these lines is then due to the velocity structure and to self-absorption in the disc. Gehrz et al. (1974) showed that the optical and infrared excess in the systems could be explained by disc free-free emission. Recent radio and optical interferometric data has confirmed the existence of the disc (Dougherty & Taylor 1992, Quirrenbach et al. 1994, Stee et al. 1995).

Studies of Be stars have traditionally concentrated on optical–near IR photometry and optical spectroscopy. However, the optical H i recombination lines do not function as good diagnostics of the inner regions of the circumstellar disc. Since it is likely that studying the inner regions of the disc will result in important constraints to the physical processes giving rise to the different wind regimes the need for observations of this region are pressing. Near–IR spectroscopy provides one tool to probe the innermost regions of the circumstellar disc. We have therefore obtained H and K band spectra of a sample of some $``$60 Be stars, from B0–B9 to study this region of the circumstellar envelope for the first time.

This paper is the third of a series on the optical and near IR spectral properties of a representative sample of 58 Be stars. In Steele et al. (1999; Paper I) we discuss the the basic properties of our sample, such as spectral type, luminosity class and projected rotational velocity, and determine that no significant selection effects bias our sample. In Clark & Steele (2000; Paper II) we present the K band spectra of the sample and relate these to the underlying properties of the stars. In this paper we present $`H`$ band (1.53–1.69 $`\mu `$m) spectra of 55 of the stars from Paper I, plus three additional objects (see Table 7).

## 2 Observations & Data Reduction

The sample of target objects contains objects from O9 to B8.5 and of luminosity classes III (giants) to V (dwarfs), as well as three shell stars. The sample was selected in an attempt to contain several objects that were typical of each spectral and luminosity class in the above range; it therefore does not reflect the spectral and luminosity class space distribution of Be stars, but only the average properties of each subclass in temperature and luminosity. A spectral type and measure of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ was derived for each object in the sample and were presented in Paper I (only the spectral classifications are repeated here for sake of brevity). The distribution of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ within each temperature and luminosity class was carefully investigated and the conclusion drawn that there were no significant selection effects biasing the average properties of the objects (see Paper I for details).

The observations were carried out on the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) on 1996 June 29 and October 1–2 (see Tables 2–7), using the Cooled Grating Spectrometer (CGS4). The observations were made using the short focal length camera plus the 150 line/mm grating, giving an ideal coverage from 1.53 to 1.71$`\mu `$m with a velocity resolution of $`100`$ km/s. Unfortunately, due to problems with the slit rotation mechanism, the wavelength coverage was slightly curtailed, leading to a final wavelength coverage of 1.53 to 1.69 $`\mu `$m, excluding the He i 1.7004$`\mu `$m transition. Data reduction was carried out in a similar manner as described in Paper II with correction for telluric features by ratioing observed G type standards with the solar spectrum to remove features within their photosphere, and then ratioing the object spectrum with the modified standard spectrum.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Line Identification

The primary goal of these observations was to observe the H i Brackett recombination series. The wavelength range chosen encompasses Br-18–11, as well as Fe ii lines at 1.534, 1.600 and 1.620$`\mu `$m (amongst others). Various He ii transitions are also found within this wavelength region, however given their absence in the K band spectra presented in Paper II, we do not expect to see these in emission. The spectra are presented in Figs. 1–6, and are presented in the same Groups we defined in Paper II, which were based on their K band spectral morphology (see Table 1). This approach has been adopted, rather than grouping the spectra on the basis of their optically derived spectral classifications since one aim of this work was to define a classification scheme based on near–IR spectroscopy alone, for use in the classification of heavily obscured stars, such as those often found in High Mass X–ray binary systems.

Unsurprisingly, based on the features present in the K band spectra, the obvious lines seen in emission are Br-18–11, and Fe ii 1.576$`\mu `$m and 1.687$`\mu `$m. A further feature in the blue wing of Br-11 ($`\lambda `$1.678$`\mu `$m) is also seen in a subset of spectra, the identity of which is discussed further below. No emission from species of higher excitation (such as He ii, N iii or C iii) was observed. The presence and equivalent widths (EW) of these features are summarised in Tables 2–7. Equivalent widths and FWHM were measured using the abline routine of the figaro software package. This measures EW by integrating the line flux relative to an interpolated continuum produced by polynomial fitting in the vicinity of the line - it therefore makes no assumption about line shape. FWHM are measured by looking at the line width which encompasses 68% of the line flux and multiplying by 1.18. For a line of Gaussian profile this gives exactly the FWHM, and for any reasonably centrally concentrated profile (as ours are) it gives a result very close to the FWHM that is more robust than simple Gaussian fitting.

Brackett series emission is seen in all stars of Groups 1, 3 and 5 (which all possess Br$`\gamma `$ emission), with the possible exception of BD +51 3091, a B7 III star (Fig. 6). Of Groups 2 and 4, which were defined on the basis of the absence of Br$`\gamma `$ emission in the K band spectra, only BD +30 3227 appears to show evidence for partial infilling of Br-11–14 (Fig. 3), while the remainder appear to possess pure absorption spectra.

Fe ii 1.576$`\mu `$m emission is seen in a total of 13 stars, compared to a total of 19 stars showing Fe ii 2.089$`\mu `$m emission. Of the 33 stars where the wavelength coverage encompassed Fe ii 1.688$`\mu `$m, the line was in emission in 6 stars, 5 of which are Group 1 objects, the final star, MWC 659, being one of the 3 objects without corresponding K band observations (see Tables 2–7). We note that all stars with Fe ii 1.576$`\mu `$m emission also show Fe ii 1.688$`\mu `$m emission. The correlation between the presence of Fe ii emission in the H and K bands is weaker, with a total of 8 stars showing Fe ii emission in either the H or K band, but not in the other. However, as with the K band spectra, Fe ii emission only occurs in the H band spectra of those stars with strong Brackett series emission; EW$`{}_{Br11}{}^{}>`$3.5Å111Note that in this paper we will employ the convention that positive equivalent widths indicate emission features. (EW$`{}_{Br\gamma }{}^{}>`$8Å).

Two possible identifications exist for the emission feature at $``$1.678$`\mu `$m; Fe ii 1.679$`\mu `$m and \[Fe ii\] 1.678$`\mu `$m. Of these, we favour Fe ii 1.679$`\mu `$m since the feature is only seen in stars that show emission in the other two Fe ii lines, and no emission is seen in the (albeit weaker) \[Fe ii\] transitions at 1.534$`\mu `$m and 1.644$`\mu `$m (Hamann & Persson 1989).

Overall, as regards spectral classification using the $`H`$ band spectra of Be stars, it is apparent that with the absence of many pure photospheric features that are uncontaminated by disc emission it is only possible to perform a very general spectral classification into “early” (B0e–B4e) and “late” (B5e–B9e) spectral types. The problem of the lack of photospheric features uncontaminated by emission from the circumstellar disc is compounded by the (expected) lack of emission from species with a wide range of excitation energies (although we speculate that the presence of He i 1.700$`\mu `$m emission may function as an additional, valuable diagnostic of early spectral types).

### 3.2 Brackett Line Strengths

In order to make an accurate comparison of Brackett line strengths between objects of different spectral type, it is necessary to remove the effect of the underlying photospheric absorption lines from the spectra. To carry out this correction we used the equivalent widths for normal (non-emission) B stars presented for Br-$`\gamma `$ by Hanson et al. (1996) and for Br 11-18 by Steele & Clark(2001). The correction itself simply consisted of subtracting the equivalent width derived from a least squares fit to the appropriate transition for the normal B stars from the emission line equivalent width. The discussion and figures in this section therefore refer to this corrected equivalent width. We note that within the small wavelength range encompassed by Br-11 to Br-18, these corrected equivalent widths may be divided by one another and treated as flux ratios without introducing significant error.

We plot the EW of Br-11, 14 & 18 against spectral type in Fig. 7 (the remainder of the lines are not plotted due to reasons of space). As with Br$`\gamma `$ (Paper II) we find that while a linear correlation between spectral type and EW is absent, a strong trend in the upper envelope of the line strengths is present, with lower mean and maximum line strengths for the later ($``$B5–B9) spectral types. We find no evidence of systematic differences between the emission characteristics of stars of differing luminosity classes.

In Fig. 8 we plot the EW of Br-11 against those of Br-12, -15 and -18, while in Fig. 9 we plot the EW of Br-18 versus Br-12, -15, -16 and -17. Note that the empty symbols cluster around EW of zero in both papers, with a typical deviation of $`1`$ Å. As these are non-emission line objects, this indicates that the accuracy of our correction for the photospheric absorption component is of that order. We also note that there appears to be no significant difference in these graphs between the various spectral groups.

Given that the Br 11-18 lines arise from high levels in the hydrogen atom they might be expected to be optically thin, and therefore well represented by case B recombination theory. In order to test this, we plot as a straight line in Fig.s 8 and 9 the expected case B line ratios from Storey & Hummer (1995) for ionized hydrogen. The predicted line ratios are constant to within a few per-cent for temperatures in the range 7500 - 40000 $`K`$ and electron densities in the range $`10^{10}10^{14}`$ cm-3, and are therefore should not be sensitive to these conditions within the disk. From the figures it is apparent that although there is reasonable agreement between case B theory and observation in the line ratios between closely adjacent lines (e.g. Br-11 and Br-12, or Br-17 and Br-18), for more separated transitions the case B ratios do not seem to fit the data well. This may reflect either a complex disk temperature and density profile (as discussed in the following paragraph) or that the optically thin and/or LTE assumptions for these lines are not valid. Spectra extending further down the series (e.g. to Br-22) where the lines are weaker would help to resolve this question.

In Fig. 10 we plot the EW of Br$`\gamma `$ (taken from Paper II) against that of Br-11, 15 & 18. Unlike the higher transition ratios of Fig. 2 and 3 here there are large differences in the flux ratios between the groups, with a progression in the ratio Br-15/Br$`\gamma `$ from $`0.5`$ (Group 1), through $`0.2`$ (group 3) to $`0.0`$ (Group 5). This effect is a real reflection of differences in line flux and not just due to continuum differences over the larger wavelength range for the Br-15/Br$`\gamma `$ equivalent width ratio. At first sight it may seem that the stronger circumstellar free-free excesses of the Group 1 objects could account for this effect, by reducing the Br$`\gamma `$ EW for these objects. However this effect is small. The two continuum regions are well approximated by the photometric $`H`$ and $`K`$ bands, and Howells et al. (2001) show that the mean $`E(HK)_{cs}`$ only varies from $`0.12`$ for Group 1 objects to $`0.03`$ for Group 5 objects, insufficient to cause the observed EW ratio changes. We also note that this effect is somewhat mitigated by the change in intrinsic colours between Groups 1 ($`(HK)_o0.04`$) and 5 ($`(HK)_o0.01`$) (Koornneef 1983). We therefore believe that this progression is likely to be due to systematic changes in the temperature, degree of ionization, and structure within the discs as the temperature and flux of the underlying stars changes. Marlborough et al. (1997) present simulations of selected near–IR H i transitions for both isothermal discs, and discs with a simple radial temperature gradient, and find that varying the disc temperature does indeed lead to changes in the line decrement. However, recent work by Millar & Marlborough (1998) shows that these simple models for the disc temperature are incorrect, and that the equilibrium temperatures for Be star discs are a complex function of disc radius, particularly in the inner disc regions responsible for near–IR recombination line emission. Further evidence for this is found in our inability to fit case B line ratios to the higher transitions as noted previously. Consequently, we defer detailed discussion of the systematic variations in the Brackett line decrement for a future paper, where modeling of the line fluxes will be accomplished for the full optical–IR dataset.

### 3.3 Line widths and projected rotational velocities

In Paper II we found correlations between the full width half maximum (FWHM) of Br$`\gamma `$ and He i 2.058$`\mu `$m lines and the projected rotational velocity of the stars, in a similar fashion that those found for H$`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and selected optical Fe ii lines by Hanuschik (1989). He further found that the intrinsically weaker lines such as the higher Balmer lines and Fe ii were systematically broader than H$`\alpha `$ which he attributed to the weaker lines being produced in a smaller region of a quasi- Keplerian disc than the intrinsically stronger H$`\alpha `$ line, where the rotational velocity would be greater, and thus the line broader. Simulations by Marlborough et al. (1997) also demonstrate the same effect, as do the longer wavelength infrared spectra of $`\gamma `$-Cas presented by Hony et al. (2000).

In Fig. 11 we plot the full width half maximum (FWHM) of Br-11, 12, 15 and 18 for stars of Groups 1 and 3 against their projected rotational velocities from Paper 1 (stars from Group 5 were excluded due to the bias introduced into the FWHM by the underlying photospheric feature). Weak correlations were found between the FWHM and the projected rotational velocities by applying Spearman’s Rank Correlation to the datasets, and the results of least square fits to the data are presented in Table 7. It is interesting to note that the minimum measured FWHM is around 300 km/s (considerably larger than the instrumental resolution of $`100`$ km/s). This means that for the relatively slow ($`v\mathrm{sin}i100200`$ km/s) rotators, the FWHM for these lines is often more than twice the $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ of the underlying star, possibly indicating more rapid rotation at the inner edge of the disk than at the surface of the star. We also note three Group 1 (BD +47 3985, BD +58 2320 and BD +1 1005) and one Group 3 (BD +42 4538) appear to have very large Br-11 FWHM of greater than around 500 km/s. However these objects also show double peaks in their line profiles, making the derivation (and interpretation) of FWHM uncertain.

In Fig. 12 we plot the FWHM of Br-18, 15 & 12 vs Br-11. It can be seen that there is no trend to broader line profiles with higher Brackett series transitions as was suggested by the results of Hony et al. (2000). We attribute this result primarily to the narrow wavelength (and hence transition) range of our spectra compared to the work of Hony et al. (2000) whose spectra extend to the limit of each series.

## 4 Conclusions

We have analysed the H band (1.53$`\mu `$m–1.69$`\mu `$m) spectra of 61 Be stars and found emission from H i Br11–18 and Fe ii 1.576 & 1.698$`\mu `$m. A further emission feature at 1.679$`\mu `$m is present in a subset of 14 stars; this is also likely to be Fe ii emission. The Br 11–18 line ratios of non adjacent lines are not well fit by the case B assumption, and strong systematic trends in both line strength and the ratio of the higher Brackett series strengths to Br-$`\gamma `$ with spectral type (but not luminosity class) are observed. This is likely to be due to systematic changes in the temperature and degree of ionization between the discs of stars of early (B0–B4) and late (B5–B9) spectral type. We find that analysis of H band spectra alone only allow the classification of stars into “early” (B0e–B4e) or late (B5e–B9e) types; no determination of the luminosity class of the object can be made. This is due to the lack of any uncontaminated photospheric features in this region, the lack of emission features encompassing a wide range of excitation temperatures and the similarity of Brackett line strengths and decrements for the early type stars. As with Br$`\gamma `$, we find weak correlations between the FWHM of Br11-18 and the projected rotational velocity of the underlying stars. We find no systematic trend in FWHM through the Brackett series down to Br-18.

## 5 Acknowledgements

UKIRT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre, Hawaii for the UK PPARC. We thank the support astronomers and staff of UKIRT for their invaluable assistance at the telescope. Data reduction and analysis for this paper was carried out using the Liverpool JMU and Sussex University Starlink Nodes. JSC wishes to acknowledge a PPARC research award.


format: text

text:
# Field theoretic calculation of energy cascade rates in nonhelical magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

## I Introduction

There are various phenomenological, numerical, and theoretical result on magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) turbulence. Kraichnan Krai:65  and Irosnikov Iros  proposed a first phenomenology for homogeneous and isotropic MHD which connects energy spectrum and cascade rates. In this phenomenology, the kinetic and magnetic energy spectrum ($`E^u(k)`$ and $`E^b(k)`$ respectively) are proportional to $`k^{3/2}`$, and the energy cascade rate of flux $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(E(k))^2k^3/B_0`$, where $`B_0`$ is the mean magnetic field. In an alternate phenomenology, Marsch Mars:Kolm , Matthaeus and Zhou MattZhou , and Zhou and Matthaeus ZhouMatt  predicted that energy spectrum is Kolmogorov-like ($`E(k)k^{5/3}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(E(k))^{3/2}k^{5/2}`$. Verma et al. MKV:MHDsimu  numerically calculated the energy cascade rates of Elsässer variable $`𝐮\pm 𝐛`$ (u,b are velocity and magnetic field fluctuations), and found their results to be consistent with Kolmogorov-like phenomenology, rather that that of Kraichnan and Irosnikov. Frick and Sokoloff Fric  studied the spectra and cascade rates in a shell model of MHD turbulence; they found the spectral index to be close to 5/3 in absence of cross helicity and magnetic helicity. According to their study, the helicities suppress the cascade process. Recently, Müller and Biskamp Bisk1:Kolm  and Biskamp and Müller Bisk2:Kolm  computed the spectral index and found it to be closer to 5/3. Kolmogorov-like spectrum is also supported by recent theoretical results MKV:B0RG ; Srid1 ; Srid2 ; MKV:MHD\_PRE ; MKV:MHDRG ; Hnat .

The energy cascade rates of MHD depend on cross helicity ($`H_c=𝐮𝐛`$), magnetic helicity ($`H_M=𝐚𝐛`$, where $`𝐚`$ is vector potential), and kinetic helicity ($`H_K=𝐮\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is vorticity). Pouquet et al. Pouq:EDQNM  applied EDQNM approximation to study energy fluxes. For nonhelical MHD, Pouquet et al. Pouq:EDQNM  argued that the ME cascade is forward, i.e., from large-scale to small-scale. However, in the presence of helicity, they observed that the large-scale magnetic energy brings to equipartition the small-scale kinetic and magnetic excitation by Alfvén effect, and the “residual helicity”, $`H_KH_M`$, induces growth of large-scale magnetic energy and helicity. Pouquet and Patterson Pouq:num  studied this problem using direct numerical simulation and arrived at similar conclusions. In the present paper we will derive the energy fluxes of nonhelical MHD using field theoretic methods. The energy fluxes of helical MHD are discussed in a companion paper, Verma MKV:MHDhelical , referred to as paper II.

Since there are two fields u and b in MHD, the energy can be transferred from u to u, u to b, and b to b. The resulting energy fluxes due to these transfers are illustrated in Fig. 1. These fluxes have been numerically calculated recently by Dar et al. Dar:flux  and Ishizawa and Hattori Ishi:flux  for two-dimensional (2D) MHD turbulence. The numerical values calculated by Dar et al. for $`\sigma _c0`$ and $`r_A`$ (KE/ME) $`0.5`$ are listed in Table 1. The prime conclusions of Dar et al. Dar:flux  and Ishizawa and Hattori’s Ishi:flux  2D numerical study are: (1) the ME cascades from large-scales to small-scales (forward cascade); (2) there is a significant energy transfer from large length-scale velocity field to large length-scale magnetic field; this transfer could play an important role in ME enhancement; (3) there is an inverse cascade of KE. In another recent work, Cho and Vishniac ChoVish:gene  have derived some interesting scaling relationships between the energy transfer rates and verified them using numerical simulations. Since the direction of total energy cascade is the same in 2D and 3D (three-dimensional) MHD turbulence, some of the conclusions drawn by Dar et al. Dar:flux  and Ishizawa and Hattori Ishi:flux  based on 2D simulations are expected to hold at least qualitatively in 3D MHD turbulence. Therefore, in this paper we compare the numerical results of Dar et al. Dar:flux  and Ishizawa and Hattori Ishi:flux  with our 3D analytic results.

In the present paper we have carried out the energy cascade rate calculation for MHD turbulence for the inertial-range wavenumbers using perturbative field-theoretic technique. Here we assume that the turbulence is homogeneous and isotropic to make the problem tractable. Even though the real-world turbulence does not satisfy these properties, at least at the large-scales, many conclusions drawn using this assumption give us important insights into the energy transfer mechanisms, as will be discussed in this paper and paper II. We assume that the mean magnetic field is absent; this assumption is to ensure that the turbulence is isotropic. Our procedure requires Fourier space integrations of functions involving products of energy spectrum and the Greens functions. Since there is a general agreement on Kolmogorov-like spectrum for MHD turbulence, we take $`E(k)k^{5/3}`$ for all the energy spectra for MHD. For the Greens function, we substitute the “renormalized” or “dressed” Greens function computed by Verma MKV:MHDRG . After this substitution, various energy fluxes and Kolmogorov’s constant of MHD are computed. Using the steady-state condition, we also calculate the energy supply from the large-scale velocity field to the large-scale magnetic field. This result is quite robust, and is independent of the nature of large-scale forcing. In this paper we assume both kinetic and magnetic helicity to be absent. The energy fluxes for helical MHD are discussed in paper II.

The parameter space of MHD is rather large because of various energy spectra. The two well known parameters are: the normalized cross helicity $`\sigma _c`$, which is the ratio of twice cross helicity and energy; and the Alfvén ratio $`r_A`$, which is the ratio of kinetic energy and magnetic energy. Calculation of cascade rates for arbitrary $`\sigma _c`$ and $`r_A`$ is quite complex. In this paper we limit ourselves to two limiting cases: (1) $`\sigma _c=0`$ and whole range of $`r_A`$; (2) $`\sigma _c1`$ and $`r_A=1`$. Strictly speaking, the parameters used in our calculations are spectral $`\sigma _c(k)=2H_c(k)/(E^u(k)+E^b(k))`$ and $`r_A(k)=E^u(k)/E^b(k)`$. Since our calculation is confined to inertial-range wavenumbers where Kolmogorov’s 5/3 powerlaw is valid for all the energy spectra of MHD, both $`\sigma (k)`$ and $`r_A(k)`$ can be treated as constants. Note that these parameters may differ from the global $`\sigma _c`$ and $`r_A`$. We carry out our theoretical analysis in various dimensions. We will show that our theoretical results are in general agreement with the simulation results of Dar et al. Dar:flux  and Ishizawa and Hattori Ishi:flux .

The outline of this paper is as follows: In section 2 we calculate various cascade rates for $`\sigma _c=0`$ case. The other extreme case $`\sigma _c1`$ is considered in section 3. Section 4 contains summary and conclusions.

## II Cascade Rates in MHD Turbulence: $`\sigma _c=0`$

In this section we will analytically compute the energy cascade rates when $`\sigma _c=0`$. We take the following form of Kolmogorov’s spectrum for kinetic energy (KE) and magnetic energy (ME)

$`E^u(k)`$ $`=`$ $`K^u\mathrm{\Pi }^{2/3}k^{5/3}`$ (1)
$`E^b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`E^u(k)/r_A`$ (2)
where $`K^u`$ is Kolmogorov’s constant for MHD turbulence, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the total energy flux. Another Kolmogorov’s constant $`K`$ is defined for the total energy,

$$E_{total}(k)=E^u(k)+E^b(k)=E(k)=K\mathrm{\Pi }^{2/3}k^{5/3},$$
(3)
with

$$K=K^u(1+r_A^1)$$
(4)
With this preliminaries we start our flux calculation.

The incompressible MHD equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐮}{t}}+(𝐮)𝐮`$ $`=`$ $`p+(𝐛)𝐛+\nu ^2𝐮`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐛}{t}}+(𝐮)𝐛`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐛)𝐮+\eta ^2𝐛`$ (6)
$`𝐮`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (7)
$`𝐛`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
where $`𝐮`$ and $`𝐛`$ are the velocity and magnetic fields respectively, $`p`$ is the total pressure, and $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ are the kinematic viscosity and magnetic diffusivity respectively. To compute various energy transfers among various Fourier modes we resort to the energy equations, which are Pouq:EDQNM ; Dar:flux ; Stan:book

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+2\nu k^2\right)C^{uu}(𝐤,t,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{𝐤^{}+𝐩+𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}[S^{uu}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{uu}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)`$ (9)
$`+S^{ub}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{ub}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)]`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+2\eta k^2\right)C^{bb}(𝐤,t,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{𝐤^{}+𝐩+𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}[S^{bu}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{bu}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)`$ (10)
$`+S^{bb}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{bb}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)]`$
The above integrals have constraints that $`𝐤^{}+𝐩+𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝐤=𝐤^{}`$). The equal-time correlation functions used in the energy equations are defined using

$`u_i(𝐩,t)u_j(𝐪,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{uu}(𝐩,t,t)\delta (𝐩+𝐪)`$ (11)
$`b_i(𝐩,t)b_j(𝐪,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{bb}(𝐩,t,t)\delta (𝐩+𝐪)`$ (12)
$`u_i(𝐩,t)b_j(𝐪,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{ub}(𝐩,t,t)\delta (𝐩+𝐪)`$ (13)
and the energy transfer rates $`S(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ are defined using

$`S^{uu}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}([𝐤^{}𝐮(𝐪)][𝐮(𝐤^{})𝐮(𝐩)]),`$ (14)
$`S^{bb}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}([𝐤^{}𝐮(𝐪)][𝐛(𝐤^{})𝐛(𝐩)]),`$ (15)
$`S^{ub}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}([𝐤^{}𝐛(𝐪)][𝐮(𝐤^{})𝐛(𝐩)]),`$ (16)
$`S^{bu}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`S^{ub}(𝐩|𝐤^{}|𝐪)`$ (17)
Here $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the imaginary part of the argument. Note that $`C^{ub}=0`$ because $`\sigma _c`$ has been taken to be zero. The above equations are based on Dar et al.’s formalism, which is a generalization of those of Pouquet et al. Pouq:EDQNM  and Stanis̆ić Stan:book  and others. In Dar et al.’s formalism, the terms $`S(𝐤|𝐩|𝐪)`$ represents energy transfer from mode $`𝐩`$ (the second argument of $`S`$) to $`𝐤`$ (the first argument of $`S`$) with mode $`𝐪`$ (the third argument of $`S`$) acting as a mediator. Note that in the expression for $`S`$, the field variables with the first and second arguments are dotted together, while the field variables with the third argument is dotted with the wavevector $`𝐤`$. Dar et al.’s formulas has certain advantages over those of Pouquet et al. Pouq:EDQNM  and Stanis̆ić Stan:book . Some of the quantities to be defined below were not accessible in the earlier formalism, but now they can be calculated using Dar et al.’s formulas. In addition, the flux formulas derived using the new scheme are relatively simpler.

After some algebraic manipulation it can be shown that

$`S^{uu}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{uu}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)+S^{uu}(𝐩|𝐤^{}|𝐪)+S^{uu}(𝐩|𝐪|𝐤^{})+S^{uu}(𝐪|𝐤^{}|𝐩)+S^{uu}(𝐪|𝐩|𝐤^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (18)
$`S^{bb}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{bb}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)+S^{bb}(𝐩|𝐤^{}|𝐪)+S^{bb}(𝐩|𝐪|𝐤^{})+S^{bb}(𝐪|𝐤^{}|𝐩)+S^{bb}(𝐪|𝐩|𝐤^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
$`S^{ub}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{ub}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)+S^{ub}(𝐩|𝐤^{}|𝐪)+S^{ub}(𝐩|𝐪|𝐤^{})+S^{ub}(𝐪|𝐤^{}|𝐩)+S^{ub}(𝐪|𝐩|𝐤^{})`$
$`+S^{bu}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{bu}(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)+S^{bu}(𝐩|𝐤^{}|𝐪)+S^{bu}(𝐩|𝐪|𝐤^{})+S^{bu}(𝐪|𝐤^{}|𝐩)+S^{bu}(𝐪|𝐩|𝐤^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (20)
These are the statements of “detailed conservation of energy” in MHD triads (when $`\nu =\eta =0`$) Lesl:book .

For energy flux study, we split the wavenumber space into two regions: $`k<k_0`$ (inside “$`k_0`$-sphere”) and $`k>k_0`$ (outside “$`k_0`$-sphere”). This division is done for both velocity and magnetic fields. The energy transfer could take place from inside/outside u/b-sphere to inside/outside u/b-sphere. In terms of $`S`$, the energy flux from inside of the $`X`$-sphere to outside of the $`Y`$-sphere is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y>}^{X<}(k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k^{}>k_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{p<k_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}S^{YX}(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ (21)
where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ stand for $`u`$ or $`b`$. The energy fluxes from inside $`u/b`$-sphere to outside $`u/b`$-sphere can be calculated by earlier formalism, as well as that of Dar et al. However, the fluxes from inside $`u`$-sphere to inside $`b`$-sphere, and outside $`u`$-sphere to outside $`b`$-sphere can be numerically calculated only by Dar et al.’s formalism. In this paper we will analytically calculate the above fluxes in the inertial range using the Kolmogorov-like energy spectrum.

We assume that the kinetic energy is forced at small wavenumbers, and the turbulence is steady. Therefore,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{b<}`$ (22)
Input Kinetic Energy $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{u<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$ (23)
We calculate the energy flux $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$ using the above steady-state property. Hence the energy feed into the large-scale magnetic field from the large-scale velocity field could be obtained theoretically irrespective of nature of large-scale forcing.

We will analytically calculate the above energy fluxes \[Eq. (21)\] in the inertial range to the leading order in perturbation series. It is assumed that $`𝐮(𝐤)`$ is gaussian to leading order. Consequently, the ensemble average of $`S^{YX}`$, $`S^{YX}`$, is zero to the zeroth order, but is nonzero to the first order. The first order terms for $`S^{YX}(k|p|q)`$ in terms of Feynman diagrams are shown below:

$`S^{uu}(k^{}|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{};`$ (24)
$`S^{ub}(k^{}|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{};`$ (25)
$`S^{bu}(k^{}|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}\text{}+\text{};`$ (26)
$`S^{bb}(k^{}|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+\text{}\text{}`$ (27)
In the above diagrams the solid, dashed, wiggly (photon), and curly (gluons) lines denote $`u_iu_j,b_ib_j,G^{uu}`$, and $`G^{bb}`$ respectively. In all the diagrams, the left vertex denotes $`k_i`$, while the filled circle and the empty circles of right vertex represent $`(i/2)P_{ijm}^+`$ and $`iP_{ijm}^{}`$ respectively. Since $`G^{ub},G^{bu},C^{ub}`$, and $`C^{bu}`$ are zero when $`\sigma _c=0`$, we have not included the Feynman diagrams containing these terms. When we substitute $`u_iu_j,b_ib_j`$ using Eqs. (11,12), we obtain terms involving $`C^X(p,t,t^{})C^Y(q,t,t^{})`$. The resulting expressions for various $`S^{YX}(k|p|q)`$ are

$`S^{uu}(k|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt^{}[T_1(k,p,q)G^{uu}(k,tt^{})C^{uu}(p,t,t^{})C^{uu}(q,t,t^{})`$ (28)
$`+T_5(k,p,q)G^{uu}(p,tt^{})C^{uu}(k,t,t^{})C^{uu}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_9(k,p,q)G^{uu}(q,tt^{})C^{uu}(k,t,t^{})C^{uu}(p,t,t^{})]`$
$`S^{ub}(k|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt^{}[T_2(k,p,q)G^{uu}(k,tt^{})C^{bb}(p,t,t^{})C^{bb}(q,t,t^{})`$ (29)
$`+T_7(k,p,q)G^{bb}(p,tt^{})C^{uu}(k,t,t^{})C^{bb}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{11}(k,p,q)G^{uu}(q,tt^{})C^{uu}(k,t,t^{})C^{bb}(p,t,t^{})]`$
$`S^{bu}(k|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt^{}[T_3(k,p,q)G^{bb}(k,tt^{})C^{uu}(p,t,t^{})C^{bb}(q,t,t^{})`$ (30)
$`+T_6(k,p,q)G^{uu}(p,tt^{})C^{bb}(k,t,t^{})C^{bb}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{12}(k,p,q)G^{bb}(q,tt^{})C^{bb}(k,t,t^{})C^{uu}(p,t,t^{})]`$
$`S^{bb}(k|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt^{}[T_4(k,p,q)G^{bb}(k,tt^{})C^{bb}(p,t,t^{})C^{uu}(q,t,t^{})`$ (31)
$`+T_8(k,p,q)G^{bb}(p,tt^{})C^{bb}(k,t,t^{})C^{uu}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{10}(k,p,q)G^{uu}(q,tt^{})C^{bb}(k,t,t^{})C^{bb}(p,t,t^{})]`$
where $`T_i(k,p,q)`$ are functions of wavevectors $`k,p`$, and $`q`$ given in Appendix A.

The Greens functions can be written in terms of “effective” or “renormalized” viscosity $`\nu (k)`$ and resistivity $`\eta (k)`$ (see Verma MKV:MHDRG  for details) as

$`G^{uu}(k,tt^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\nu (k)k^2(tt^{})\right)`$ (32)
$`G^{bb}(k,tt^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\eta (k)k^2(tt^{})\right)`$ (33)
The relaxation time for $`C^{uu}(k,t,t^{})`$ is assumed to be the same as that of $`G^{uu}`$, and that of $`C^{bb}(k,t,t^{})`$ is assumed to be the same as that of $`G^{bb}`$. Therefore the time dependence of the unequal-time correlation functions will be

$`C^{uu}(k,t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\nu (k)k^2(tt^{})\right)C^{uu}(k,t,t)`$ (34)
$`C^{bb}(k,t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\eta (k)k^2(tt^{})\right)C^{bb}(k,t,t)`$ (35)
The above forms of Green’s and correlation functions are substituted in the expression of $`S^{YX}`$, and the $`t^{}`$ integral is performed. Now Eqs. (21, 28) yield the following flux formula for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}(k_0)`$:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}(k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k>k_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{p<k_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu (k)k^2+\nu (p)p^2+\nu (q)q^2}}\times `$ (36)
$`[T_1(k,p,q)C^{uu}(p)C^{uu}(q)+T_5(k,p,q)C^{uu}(k)C^{uu}(q)+T_9(k,p,q)C^{uu}(k)C^{uu}(p)]`$
The expressions for the other fluxes can be obtained similarly.

The equal-time correlation functions $`C^{uu}(k,t,t)`$ and $`C^{bb}(k,t,t)`$ at the steady-state can be written in terms of one dimensional energy spectrum as

$`C^{uu}(k,t,t)={\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^d}{S_d(d1)}}k^{(d1)}E^u(k)`$ (37)
$`C^{bb}(k,t,t)={\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^d}{S_d(d1)}}k^{(d1)}E^b(k)`$ (38)
where $`S_d`$ is the surface area of $`d`$-dimensional unit spheres. We are interested in the fluxes in the inertial range. Therefore, we substitute Kolmogorov’s spectrum \[Eqs. (1,2)\] for the energy spectrum. The effective viscosity and resistivity are proportional to $`k^{4/3}`$, i.e.,

$`\nu (k)`$ $`=`$ $`(K^u)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{1/3}k^{4/3}\nu ^{}`$ (39)
$`\eta (k)`$ $`=`$ $`(K^u)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{1/3}k^{4/3}\eta ^{}.`$ (40)
and the parameters $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ were calculated in Verma MKV:MHDRG .

The $`d`$-dimensional volume integral under the constraint $`𝐤^{}+𝐩+𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is given by FourFris

$$_{𝐩+𝐪=𝐤}𝑑𝐪=S_{d1}𝑑p𝑑q\left(\frac{pq}{k}\right)^{d2}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^{d3}$$
(41)
where $`\alpha `$ is angle between vectors $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$. We also nondimensionalize Eq. (36) by substituting Lesl:book

$$k=\frac{k_0}{u};p=\frac{k_0}{u}v;q=\frac{k_0}{u}w$$
(42)
which yields

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y>}^{X<}=(K^u)^{3/2}\mathrm{\Pi }\left[\frac{4S_{d1}}{(d1)^2S_d}_0^1𝑑v\mathrm{ln}(1/v)_{1v}^{1+v}𝑑w(vw)^{d2}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^{d3}F_{Y>}^{X<}(v,w)\right]$$
(43)
where the integrals $`F_{Y>}^{X<}(v,w)`$ are

$`F_{u>}^{u<}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^{}(1+v^{2/3}+w^{2/3})}}[t_1(v,w)(vw)^{d\frac{2}{3}}+t_5(v,w)w^{d\frac{2}{3}}+t_9(v,w)v^{d\frac{2}{3}}]`$ (44)
$`F_{u>}^{b<}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^{}+\eta ^{}(v^{2/3}+w^{2/3})}}[t_2(v,w)(vw)^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^2+t_7(v,w)w^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^1+t_{11}(v,w)v^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^1]`$ (45)
$`F_{b>}^{u<}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^{}v^{2/3}+\eta ^{}(1+w^{2/3})}}[t_3(v,w)(vw)^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^1+t_6(v,w)w^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^2+t_{12}(v,w)v^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^1]`$ (46)
$`F_{b>}^{b<}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu ^{}w^{2/3}+\eta ^{}(1+v^{2/3})}}[t_4(v,w)(vw)^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^1+t_8(v,w)w^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^1+t_{10}(v,w)v^{d\frac{2}{3}}r_A^2].`$ (47)
Here $`t_i(v,w)=T_i(k,kv,kw)/k^2`$. Note that the energy fluxes are constant consistent with the Kolmogorov’s picture. We compute the bracketed terms (denoted by $`I_{Y>}^{X<}`$) numerically and find that all of them converge. Let us denote $`I=I_{u>}^{u<}+I_{u>}^{b<}+I_{b>}^{u<}+I_{b>}^{b<}`$. Using the fact that the total flux $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{b<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{u<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<},$$
(48)
we can calculate the value of constant $`K^u`$, which is

$$K^u=(I)^{2/3}$$
(49)
In addition, the energy flux ratios can be computed using $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{Y>}^{X<}/\mathrm{\Pi }=I_{Y>}^{X<}/I`$. The flux ratio $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}/\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is obtained using steady-state condition \[Eq. (22)\]. The values of constant $`K`$ can be computed using Eq. (4). The flux ratios and Kolmogorov’s constants for $`d=3`$ and various $`r_A`$ are listed in Table 2. The same quantities for $`r_A=1`$ and various space dimensions are listed in Table 3.

The following trends can be inferred by studying Table 2. We find that for $`d=3`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}`$/$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ starts from 1 for large $`r_A`$ and decreases nearly to zero near $`r_A=0.3`$. All other fluxes start from zero and increase up to some saturated values; this implies that near $`r_A1`$, all the energy fluxes become significant. Clearly, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}`$is positive, indicating that ME cascades from large length-scale to small length-scale. Under steady-state the large-scale ME is maintained by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$, which is one of the most dominant transfers near $`r_A=0.5`$. The energy flux $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$ entering the large scales magnetic energy could play an important role in the amplification of magnetic energy. In paper II we will construct a dynamo model based on the energy fluxes.

The Kolmogorov constant $`K`$ for $`d=3`$ is listed in Table 2. For all $`r_A`$ greater than 0.5, $`K`$ is approximately constant and is close to 1.6, same as that for fluid turbulence ($`r_A=\mathrm{}`$). Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }K^{3/2}`$, we can conclude that the variation of $`r_A`$ (redistribution of fluid and magnetic energy, keeping the total energy fixed) does not change the total cascade rate. Near $`r_A=0.3`$, the constant $`K`$ appears to increase, indicating a sudden drop in the cascade rate. When $`r_A`$ is decreased further, near $`r_A=0.25`$ both $`\nu ^{}0`$ and $`\eta ^{}0`$ MKV:MHDRG , or $`K\mathrm{}`$. This signals an absence of turbulence for $`r_A`$ near 0.25. This is consistent with the fact that MHD equations are linear in the $`r_A0`$ (fully magnetic) limit, hence do not exhibit turbulence. However, it is still surprising that turbulence disappears near $`r_A=0.25`$ itself.

The Kolmogorov’s constant $`K`$ computed above can be used to estimate the amount of turbulent heating in the solar wind. Verma et al. MKV:SWheat  and Tu Tu  have put constraints on the turbulent heating in the solar wind from the radial variation of temperature in the solar wind. Verma et al. MKV:SWheat  observed that when $`K1`$, all the heating in the solar wind for streams with $`\sigma _c0`$ can be accounted for by the turbulent heating. Our theoretical value for this constant in the absence of mean magnetic field is approximately 1.5, larger than 1. If we take $`K1.5`$ for solar wind streams with $`\sigma _c0`$, only a fraction, possibly around half ($`(1/1.5)^{3/2}`$), of the heating will be due to turbulence. However, neglect of mean magnetic field, anisotropy, helicities etc. are gross assumptions, and we can only claim general consistency of the theoretical estimates with the observational results of the solar wind.

We have calculated the flux ratios and the constant $`K`$ for various space dimensions $`d2.2`$. In Verma MKV:MHDRG  it has been shown that for $`d<2.2`$, the RG fixed point is unstable, and the renormalized parameters could not be determined. Due to that reason we have calculated fluxes and Kolmogorov’s constant for $`d2`$ only. For these calculations we take $`r_A=1`$, which is a generic case. The calculated values are shown in Table 3. It is striking that all the fluxes are approximately the same for large $`d`$. In addition, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$/$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is approximately 0.5 for all dimensions greater than 4.

We verify that $`I_{Y>}^{X<}`$ for constant $`\nu ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are proportional to $`d^1`$. In Verma MKV:MHDRG  we find that $`\nu ^{},\eta ^{}d^{1/2}`$. Therefore, $`Kd^{1/3}`$. This result is a generalization of theoretical analysis of Fournier et al. FourFris  for fluid turbulence.

In this section we calculated the cascade rates for $`\sigma _c=0`$. In the next section we take the other limit $`\sigma _c1`$.

## III Cascade Rates in MHD Turbulence: $`\sigma _c1`$

In this section we will describe the calculation of the energy cascade rates for the large normalized cross-helicity ($`\sigma _c1`$), and show that the cascade rates crucially depend on cross helicity. For cases with $`\sigma _c1`$, it is best to work with Elsässer variables $`𝐳^\pm =𝐮\pm 𝐛`$. For the following discussion we will denote the ratio $`|z^{}|^2/|z^+|^2`$ by $`r`$. Clearly $`r1`$. Here we limit ourselves to $`r_A=1`$.

The incompressible MHD equations in terms of $`𝐳^\pm `$ are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐳^\pm }{t}}+(𝐳^{})𝐳^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`p+\nu _+^2𝐳^\pm +\nu _{}^2𝐳^{}`$ (50)
$`𝐳^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (51)
where $`p`$ is the total pressure, and $`\nu _\pm =(\nu \pm \eta )/2`$. Numerical simulations of Verma et al. MKV:MHDflux  and Dar Dar:thesis , solar wind observations of Matthaeus and Goldstein MattGold , and Marsch and Tu MarsTu90 , and theoretical calculations of Verma MKV:MHD\_PRE ; MKV:MHDRG  show that Kolmogorov-like energy spectrum is valid even for nonzero cross helicity, i.e.,

$$E^\pm (k)=K^\pm \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm \right)^{4/3}}{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\right)^{2/3}}k^{5/3}$$
(52)
where $`K^\pm `$ are Kolmogorov’s constants for MHD. The above equation was first derived by Marsch Mars:Kolm .

The corresponding equations for the energy evolution are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+2\nu _+k^2\right)C^{\pm \pm }(𝐤,t,t)+2\nu _{}k^2C^\pm (𝐤,t,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{𝐤^{}+𝐩+𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}`$ (53)
$`[S^{\pm \pm }(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^{\pm \pm }(𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)]`$
where

$$S^{\pm \pm }(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)=\mathrm{}([𝐤^{}𝐳^{}(𝐪)][𝐳^\pm (𝐤^{})𝐳^\pm (𝐩)])$$
(54)
and the equal-time correlations functions $`C^{\pm \pm }`$ and $`C^\pm `$ are defined using

$`z_i^\pm (𝐩,t)z_j^\pm (𝐪,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^{\pm \pm }(𝐩,t,t)\delta (𝐩+𝐪)`$ (55)
$`z_i^\pm (𝐩,t)z_j^{}(𝐪,t)`$ $`=`$ $`P_{ij}(𝐩)C^\pm (𝐩,t,t)\delta (𝐩+𝐪)`$ (56)
From Eq. (54) it is evident that in the nonlinear transfers, the modes $`z^+`$ transfer energy only to $`z^+`$ while $`z^{}`$ acts as a mediator. Similarly $`z^{}`$ transfers energy only to $`z^{}`$ with $`z^+`$ acting as a mediator. It can be easily shown that

$$S^\pm (𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)+S^\pm (𝐤^{}|𝐪|𝐩)+S^\pm (𝐩|𝐤^{}|𝐪)+S^\pm (𝐩|𝐪|𝐤^{})+S^\pm (𝐪|𝐤^{}|𝐩)+S^\pm (𝐪|𝐩|𝐤^{})=0$$
(57)
These equations correspond to the “detailed conservation of energy” in MHD triads.

In terms of $`z^\pm `$ variables, there are only two types of fluxes $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$, one for the $`z^+`$ cascade and the other for $`z^{}`$ cascade. In terms of $`S`$, these energy fluxes $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm (k_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{k^{}>k_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _{p<k_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^d}}S^{\pm \pm }(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ (58)
As described in the last section, the above fluxes are calculated to the leading order in perturbation series. To the first order, $`S^{\pm \pm }(𝐤^{}|𝐩|𝐪)`$ are

$`S^{\pm \pm }(k|p|q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt^{}[T_{13}(k,p,q)G^{\pm \pm }(k,tt^{})C^\pm (p,t,t^{})C^\pm (q,t,t^{})`$ (59)
$`+T_{14}(k,p,q)G^{\pm \pm }(k,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(p,t,t^{})C^{}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{15}(k,p,q)G^\pm (k,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(p,t,t^{})C^{}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{16}(k,p,q)G^\pm (k,tt^{})C^\pm (p,t,t^{})C^\pm (q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{17}(k,p,q)G^{\pm \pm }(p,tt^{})C^\pm (k,t,t^{})C^\pm (q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{18}(k,p,q)G^\pm (p,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(k,t,t^{})C^{}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{19}(k,p,q)G^\pm (p,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(k,t,t^{})C^{}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{20}(k,p,q)G^\pm (p,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(k,t,t^{})C^{}(q,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{21}(k,p,q)G^\pm (q,tt^{})C^\pm (k,t,t^{})C^{\pm \pm }(p,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{22}(k,p,q)G^\pm (q,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(k,t,t^{})C^\pm (p,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{23}(k,p,q)G^{}(q,tt^{})C^{\pm \pm }(k,t,t^{})C^\pm (p,t,t^{})`$
$`+T_{24}(k,p,q)G^{}(q,tt^{})C^\pm (k,t,t^{})C^{\pm \pm }(p,t,t^{})]`$
where $`T_i(k,p,q)`$ are given in Appendix A.

Now we use the approximation that $`r`$ is small. In terms of renormalized $`\widehat{\nu }`$ matrix

$`\widehat{\nu }(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r\zeta & \alpha \\ r\psi & \beta \end{array}\right),`$ (62)
the Green’s function $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})=\mathrm{exp}[\widehat{\nu }k^2(tt^{})]`$ to leading order in $`r`$ is

$$\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{r\alpha \psi }{\beta ^2}(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})& \left\{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }+\frac{r\alpha }{\beta }\left(\frac{\zeta }{\beta }\frac{2\alpha \psi }{\beta ^2}\right)\right\}(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})\\ \frac{r\psi }{\beta }(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})& e^{\beta (tt^{})}+\frac{r\alpha \psi }{\beta ^2}(1e^{\beta (tt^{})})\end{array}\right).$$
(63)
For derivation and further details on the renormalized $`\widehat{\nu }`$, refer to Verma MKV:MHDRG . The correlation matrix $`\widehat{C}(k,tt^{})`$ is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{++}(k,t,t^{})& C^+(k,t,t^{})\\ C^+(k,t,t^{})& C^{}(k,t,t^{})\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}C^{++}(k)& C^+(k)\\ C^+(k)& C^{}(k)\end{array}\right)`$ (68)
The quantities $`C^{\pm \pm }(k)`$ can be written in terms of $`E^\pm (k)`$ as

$$C^{\pm \pm }(k)=\frac{2(2\pi )^d}{S_d(d1)}k^{(d1)}E^\pm (k).$$
(69)
We take $`C^\pm (k)=0`$ (or $`r_A=1`$) for simplifying the calculation. We take Kolmogorov’s spectrum for $`E^\pm (k)`$ \[see Eq. (52)\], and

$$\widehat{\nu }(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r\zeta & \alpha \\ r\psi & \beta \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r\zeta ^{}& \alpha ^{}\\ r\psi ^{}& \beta ^{}\end{array}\right)\sqrt{K^+}\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^+\right)^{2/3}}{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\right)^{1/3}}k^{4/3}$$
(70)
The renormalized parameters $`\zeta ^{},\alpha ^{},\psi ^{}`$, and $`\beta ^{}`$ have been calculated in Verma MKV:MHDRG . Finally, the matrices $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})`$ and $`\widehat{C}(k,t,t^{})`$ can be written in in terms of renormalized parameters and Kolmogorov’s spectrum.

Now we substitute $`\widehat{G}(k,tt^{})`$ and $`\widehat{C}(k,t,t^{})`$ in Eq. (59), and keep terms only to the leading order in $`r`$. We find that the terms (1,4,5,8,9,10) of Eq. (59) vanish. The final equation for the fluxes $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$ to the leading order in $`r`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm =r\frac{(\mathrm{\Pi }^+)^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{}}(K^+)^{3/2}\left[\frac{4S_{d1}}{(d1)^2S_d}_0^1𝑑v\mathrm{ln}(1/v)_{1v}^{1+v}𝑑w(vw)^{d2}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha )^{d3}F^\pm (v,w)\right]$$
(71)
where the integrand $`F^\pm `$ are

$`F^+`$ $`=`$ $`t_{13}(v,w)(vw)^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}w^{2/3}}}+t_{14}(v,w)(vw)^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\beta ^{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}(1+w^{2/3})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}w^{2/3}}}\right\}`$ (72)
$`+t_{15}(v,w)w^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}w^{2/3}}}+t_{16}(v,w)w^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\beta ^{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}(v^{2/3}+w^{2/3})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}w^{2/3}}}\right\}`$
$`+t_{17}(v,w)v^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\beta ^{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}(v^{2/3}+w^{2/3})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}w^{2/3}}}\right\}`$
$`+t_{18}(v,w)v^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\beta ^{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}(1+w^{2/3})}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}w^{2/3}}}\right\}`$
$`F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t_{13}(v,w)(vw)^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}(1+v^{2/3})}}+t_{15}(v,w)w^{d2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^{}(1+v^{2/3})}}`$ (73)
We denote the bracketed term of Eq. (71) by $`I^\pm `$ and compute them numerically. We find that the integrals are finite for $`d=2`$ and 3. Also note that $`I^\pm `$ are independent of $`r`$. We calculate the constant $`K^\pm `$ of Eq. (71) in terms of $`I^\pm `$; the constants $`K^\pm `$ are listed in Table 4 for various values of $`r`$ in $`d=2`$ and 3. The constants $`K^\pm `$ depend very sensitively on $`r`$. Also, there is a change of behaviour near $`r=(I^{}/I^+)^2=r_c`$; $`K^{}<K^+`$ for $`r<r_c`$, whereas inequality reverses for $`r`$ beyond $`r_c`$.

From the equations derived above, we can derive many important relationships. For example,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{}}{\mathrm{\Pi }^+}=\frac{I^{}}{I^+}$$
(74)
Since $`I^\pm `$ are independent of $`r`$, we can immediately conclude that the ratio $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}/\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ is also independent of $`r`$. This is an important conclusion from our calculation. From the above equations we can also derive

$`K^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{2/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(I^{})^{2/3}}{(I^+)^{4/3}}}`$ (75)
$`K^{}`$ $`=`$ $`r^{1/3}{\displaystyle \frac{(I^+)^{2/3}}{(I^{})^{4/3}}}`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{K^{}}{K^+}}`$ $`=`$ $`r\left({\displaystyle \frac{I^+}{I^{}}}\right)^2`$ (77)
The total energy cascade rate can be written in terms of $`E^+(k)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^++\mathrm{\Pi }^{})=\frac{r}{2}(I^++I^{})(E^+(k))^{3/2}k^{5/2}$$
(78)
Since $`I^\pm `$ is independent of $`r`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a linear function of $`r`$. When we apply the above formula to the solar wind stream with $`r=0.07`$, we find that $`K^+=2.12`$ and $`K^{}=0.85`$.

As mentioned in the previous section, the observed temperature evolution was studied by Verma et al. MKV:SWheat  and Tu Tu . For streams with $`\sigma _c1`$, Verma et al. MKV:SWheat  had assumed that $`K^+=K^{}=K`$ independent of $`\sigma _c`$, and derived the total turbulent dissipation rate to be

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\frac{r+\sqrt{r}}{2K^{3/2}}(E^+(k))^{3/2}k^{5/2}.$$
(79)
Clearly the assumption that $`K^+=K^{}`$, as well as the above formula (79) is incorrect. Hence, the calculation of Verma et al. MKV:SWheat  needs to be modified. The substitution of the parameters $`r`$ and $`K^\pm `$ in our formula (78) gives us an estimate of the turbulent heating that is an order of magnitude higher than the observed overall heating in the solar wind MKV:SWheat . Some of the resolutions of this paradox are: (1) the assumption that the solar wind has reached steady-state is incorrect, and the formula (78) is inapplicable to the solar wind streams with large $`\sigma _c`$; or (2) the constants $`K^\pm `$ calculated above will be modified significantly by the mean magnetic field, anisotropy, and helicity etc. In case of the former, one needs to understand the nonequilibrium evolution of MHD turbulence, while in case of the latter, the field theoretic calculation has to generalized in presence of mean magnetic field and helicity. Both these generalizations are beyond the scope of this paper.

## IV Summary and Conclusions

In this paper we have theoretically calculated various energy cascade rates in the inertial range of nonhelical MHD turbulence. Our procedure is based on field-theoretic approach. Using the steady-state condition we also calculate the energy supply rate from the large-scale velocity field to the large-scale magnetic field. For simplicity of the calculation, we have taken two special cases: (1) $`\sigma _c=0`$; (2) $`\sigma _c1`$. Throughout the calculation we assume that the velocity modes at large length-scales are forced.

We will first summarize the results for $`\sigma _c=0`$ case in $`d=3`$. The cascade rates $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{u<}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{b<}`$are approximately the same for $`r_A`$ in the range of $`0.51`$, but the flux $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}`$is rather small. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}`$is positive, indicating that the ME cascades forward, that is from large length-scales to small length-scales. The large-scale magnetic field is maintained by the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$ flux. We exploit this result to construct a dynamo model for galaxy. This result is discussed in paper II.

Recently Cho and Vishniac (CV) ChoVish:gene  performed numerical simulation of nonhelical MHD turbulence and arrived at the following conclusion based on their numerical results. In our language, their results for large $`r_A`$ can be rephrased as (1) $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}U^3`$; (2) $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{(b<+b>)}^{u<}UB^2`$; (3) $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}(UcB)B^2`$, where $`U`$ and $`B`$ are the large-scale velocity and magnetic field respectively, and $`c`$ is a constant. When we compare our theoretical findings with CV’s result, we find our results can explain CV’s first and second results, but they are only partly consistent with the third result. From Eq. (44) it can be easily seen that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}`$depends on the KE in the same manner as in fluid turbulence. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}U^3/L`$, a result consistent with the first result of CV. Using $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{(b<+b>)}^{u<}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{u<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{b<}`$ and the definitions of $`F^{}s`$ \[Eqs. (46-47)\] we can easily show that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{(b<+b>)}^{u<}}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\mathrm{}r_A^1+\mathrm{}r_A^2$$
(80)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represents a constant. We estimate the above equation in the large $`r_A`$ limit ($`E^uE^b`$). In this limit, $`\mathrm{\Pi }U^3/L`$. Hence, to a leading order in $`r_A^1`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{(b<+b>)}^{u<}\mathrm{\Pi }\frac{E^b}{E^u}UB^2/L$$
(81)
From Eqs. (44-47), we also conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}(\mathrm{}r_A^1+\mathrm{}r_A^2)\mathrm{\Pi }\left(\mathrm{}\frac{U}{L}\mathrm{}\frac{B^2}{UL}\right)B^2$$
(82)
Note that the first part of the above equation matches with CV’s first part, but the second part of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{b<}^{u<}`$ differs from CV’s result by a factor of $`B/U`$. Since $`B/U1`$ at steady state, it is difficult to differentiate our results with that of CV. On the whole, our theoretical calculation is able to explain the numerical results of CV.

For $`d=3`$ the Kolmogorov’s constant $`K`$ is approximately constant and is close to 1.5 for all $`r_A`$ greater that 1/2, same as that for fluid turbulence ($`r_A=\mathrm{}`$). This result implies that the total cascade rate does not change appreciably under the variation of $`r_A`$ (since $`\mathrm{\Pi }K^{3/2}`$). The cascade rates vanish near $`r_A=0.25`$; this result is in the expected lines because MHD equations become linear in $`r_A=0`$ limit. Comparison with the past results shows that our result differs from that of Verma and Bhattacharjee’s calculation MKVJKB  where Kolmogorov’s constant changes significantly with the variation of $`r_A`$. Note, however, that our procedure described here is an improvement over that of Verma and Bhattacharjee, where they had assumed a wavenumber cutoff for the self-energy integral for curing the infrared divergence problem. They had also assumed a specific type of self-energy matrix which can be shown to be correct only in some regime.

When we vary $`d`$, we find that for large $`d`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{u<}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{b>}^{b<}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{b<}`$. In addition we also observe that Kolmogorov’s constant MHD turbulence increases with dimensions as $`d^{1/3}`$. The same variation is observed for fluid turbulence FourFris . This result indicates that the cascade rates decrease in higher dimensions. We could calculate fluxes for $`d2.2`$ because the RG fixed point is unstable for dimensions lower than 2.2 (Verma MKV:MHDRG ). However, the RG fixed point for fluid turbulence is stable for $`d=2`$, and the Kolmogorov’s constant in the inverse cascade regime of 2D fluid turbulence comes out to be 6.3. For this computation, the renormalized viscosity $`\nu ^{}`$ was taken as -0.6. It is interesting to note that Dar et al. Dar:flux  find negative KE flux ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{u>}^{u<}`$) in their 2D MHD turbulence simulation; this is reminiscent of 2D fluid turbulence.

In the other extreme limit $`\sigma _c1`$ and $`r_A=1`$, we find that Kolmogorov’s constants $`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$ are not equal, and the ratio $`K^{}/K^+`$ depends very sensitively on $`r=E^{}(k)/E^+(k)`$. Both the fluxes $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\pm `$, and also the total flux $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, are proportional to $`r`$. The flux ratio $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}/\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ is found to be independent of $`r`$. We also discuss the implications of our flux results to the heating of the solar wind.

In this paper we have restricted ourselves to nonhelical turbulence. Helical MHD turbulence is very important specially for the growth of magnetic energy (dynamo). The energy fluxes for helical MHD have been discussed in paper II. The study of the effects of mean magnetic field using field theory has been relegated for future.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks J. K. Bhattacharjee, Gaurav Dar, and V. Eswaran for discussion and suggestions. He also thanks Mustansir Barma (TIFR, Mumbai) and Krishna Kumar (ISI, Calcutta) for useful suggestions and kind hospitality during his stay in their institutes on his sabbatical leave.

## Appendix A Values of $`T_i`$

The algebraic expressions for $`T_i(k,p,q)`$ are given below.

$`T_1(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iP_{jab}^+(k)P_{ja}(p)P_{ib}(q)`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`kp\left((d3)z+(d2)xy+2z^3+2xyz^2+x^2z\right)`$
$`T_3(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iP_{jab}^{}(k)P_{ja}(p)P_{ib}(q)`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`k^2\left((d2)(1y^2)+z^2+xyz\right)`$
$`T_5(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iP_{jab}^+(p)P_{ja}(k)P_{ib}(q)`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`kp\left((d3)z+(d2)xy+2z^3+2xyz^2+y^2z\right)`$
$`T_7(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iP_{jab}^{}(p)P_{ja}(k)P_{ib}(q)`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`kp\left((2d)xy+(1d)z+y^2z\right)`$
$`T_9(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iP_{iab}^+(q)P_{ja}(k)P_{jb}(p)`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`kq\left(xz2xy^2zyz^2\right)`$
$`T_{11}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iP_{iab}^{}(q)P_{ja}(k)P_{jb}(p)`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`kqz\left(x+yz\right)`$
$`T_{2n}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{2n1}(k,p,q)\text{for }n=\mathrm{1..6}`$ (89)
$`T_{13,15}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iM_{jab}(k^{})P_{ja}(p)P_{ib}(q)`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`kpyz(y+xz)`$
$`T_{14,16}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iM_{jab}(k^{})P_{jb}(p)P_{ia}(q)`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`k^2(1y^2)(d2+z^2)`$
$`T_{17,19}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iM_{jab}(p)P_{ja}(k)P_{ib}(q)`$ (92)
$`=`$ $`kpxz(x+yz)`$
$`T_{18,20}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{14}(k,p,q)`$ (93)
$`T_{21,23}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`k_iM_{iab}(q)P_{ja}(k)P_{jb}(p)`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`kpxy(1z^2)`$
$`T_{22,24}(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{13}(k,p,q)`$ (95)
where $`𝐤=𝐩+𝐪`$, and $`x,y,z`$ are defined by

$$𝐩𝐪=pqx;𝐪𝐤=qky;𝐩𝐤=pkz.$$
(96)
Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Various energy cascade rates of MHD turbulence. The illustrated wavenumber spheres contain $`𝐮<`$ and $`𝐛<`$ modes, while $`𝐮>`$ and $`𝐛>`$ are modes outside these spheres. The velocity fields is forced at large-scale.